[Peetwo]

Times up for Muppet 6D Darren -

Via the Oz today:

Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association tips general aviation crisis

Infrastructure and Transport Minister Darren Chester.

• Annabel Hepworth
  
• The Australian
  
• 12:00AM July 14, 2017
  

Aircraft owners and operators have issued a fresh warning that general aviation businesses are being pushed to the brink.

They have seized on new figures that suggest a “serious decline” in the number of general aviation maintenance businesses.

The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association of Australia says newly obtained data from the Civil Aviation Safety Authority shows that between April last year and last month, just 15 new certificates of approval were issued to general aviation maintenance businesses.
But during this time 29 were cancelled, and a further 27 were suspended.

In a letter to Infrastructure and Transport Minister Darren Chester and CASA boss Shane Carmody, the association again warns that without action, “the results would be further business closures and unemployment”.

“While the Australian economy has enjoyed 103 quarters of continuous growth (1991 to 2017), the general aviation industry has experienced double-digit declines, suffering a 34 per cent decline in pilot numbers and a 35 per cent decline in avgas sales in just the last 10 years,” AOPA Australia’s executive director Benjamin Morgan says in the letter.

He also points to warnings by the Aircraft Maintenance Repair and Overhaul Business Association about the fall in apprenticeships for aircraft maintenance.

AMROBA director Ken Cannane said he was worried about a new low in the number of apprenticeships next year.

“They’ve got to get flying back and general aviation’s got to get back to flying to boost the capability of the maintenance industry because we’re suffering,” he told The Australian.

A CASA spokesman said there were a “range of factors” influencing the statistics. Some maintenance of large aircraft had gone offshore “due to economic factors”, while for small aircraft some general aviation operations had gone to Recreational Aviation Australia (which governs ultralights) with some of those aircraft covered by owner maintenance.

“It would be incorrect to suggest that movements in the number of maintenance or other aviation organisations can be attributed directly to regulatory issues only,” the CASA spokesman said. “Aviation is a complex industry and a simplistic analysis of data is not valid.”

In its “Project Eureka” reform blueprint last year, calling for the revitalisation of the general aviation sector in Australia, AOPA warned that apprentice training had been in “free fall” since 2010.

A 2015 report, the Future of Aircraft Maintenance in Australia, from University of NSW academics said there was a need to “rebuild” the maintenance and maintenance training sectors so Australia could meet its needs across areas including general aviation. Mr Chester previously has said he was confident general aviation could have a “prosperous future” in Australia.

& via Oz Flying:

• An aircraft maintainer works on the tail of an executive jet. (Steve Hitchen)
  

MRO Approvals highlight Industry Decline
12 July 2017

Figures set to appear in the next CASA annual report reveal a decline in Certificates of Approval (COA) for maintenance companies over the past five years.

The data shows that CASA currently has 619 approved maintenance, repair and overhaul (MRO) companies on their books compared with 733 in 2011-12, a drop-off of 15%.
According to the AOPA Australia, the trend is worst over the last 12 months. 

"Between April of 2016 and June of 2017 only 15 new COAs have been issued to industry," says AOPA CEO Ben Morgan, referring to data supplied by CASA, "whilst during the same period 29 have been canceled and a further 27 are in a state of suspension.
Collectively, some 56 COAs have been either canceled or suspended. This equates to 3.73 business per month."

Ken Cannane, Executive Director of the Aviation Maintenance Repair and Overhaul Business Association (AMROBA) says the downward trend in MRO approvals can be traced back to a decision taken over 25 years ago to do away with independent flying instructors.

"The approved MRO numbers show our industry is declining, and something has to be done about it, if its not too late," Cannane told Australian Flying.

"One of the root causes is that CASA won't allow independent flying instructors. When we did have them, young people used to go out to the local airfield to learn to fly. Now they can't do that, so they don't get involved with aviation. This has caused a decline in aircraft usage, and a loss of flying hours means a loss of business to MROs.

"We can't correct the situation until CASA allows independent flying instructors and we can get flying again. Independent instructors are a proven method of teaching people to fly, and the lack of is the single biggest cause for the decline of general aviation.

"If CASA would lift their head out of the sand and reinstate independent instructors the industry might not go into overnight revival, but at least it can start to recover."

Cannane also cites complex and over-bearing regulations that place a high burden on smaller MROs for the decline, and difficulty in getting skilled staff and apprentices into the industry.

"Small MROs can't keep up with the regulations nowadays," he said. "They were designed for airlines. It used to be simpler when all you had to do was prove you complied with the CAOs during an audit.

"The apprentice intake is on the decline. Not so long ago we were taking in 450 per year. Next year there we will be lucky if 30 are taken on.

"We need a USA system for general aviation now."

Morgan believes the data supports AOPA's warning given in May last year that a lack of action from the government would mean loss of jobs.

In a letter addressed to Minister for Infrastructure and Transport Darren Chester, Morgan said, "The AOPA Australia called on you at the Tamworth aviation rally [6 May last year] ... "to pledge your support to Australia's general aviation industry, with respect to driving genuine regulatory reform that would arrest decline and set our industry on a pathway to growth.

"It was clearly communicated, that should you as Minister do nothing and stay with the status quo, the result would be further business closures and unemployment.

"The data released by CASA confirms the AOPA position and our concerns."

CASA, however, is not convinced the downward trend can be attributed solely to regulation.

“There are a range of factors influencing the statistics in relation to approvals for maintenance organisations," a CASA spokesperson said.

"There has been some movement of maintenance for larger aircraft to offshore facilities due to economic factors. In the smaller aircraft sector there has been a movement of some general aviation operations to Recreational Aviation Australia.  RA-AUS aircraft may be covered by owner maintenance.

"It would be incorrect to suggest that movements in the number of maintenance or other aviation organisations can be attributed directly to regulatory issues only. Aviation is a complex industry and a simplistic analysis of data is not valid.”

Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/lates...vVHmiZK.99

MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

Times up for Muppet 6D Darren -

Via the Oz today:

Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association tips general aviation crisis

Infrastructure and Transport Minister Darren Chester.

• Annabel Hepworth
  
• The Australian
  
• 12:00AM July 14, 2017
  

Aircraft owners and operators have issued a fresh warning that general aviation businesses are being pushed to the brink.

They have seized on new figures that suggest a “serious decline” in the number of general aviation maintenance businesses.

The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association of Australia says newly obtained data from the Civil Aviation Safety Authority shows that between April last year and last month, just 15 new certificates of approval were issued to general aviation maintenance businesses.
But during this time 29 were cancelled, and a further 27 were suspended.

In a letter to Infrastructure and Transport Minister Darren Chester and CASA boss Shane Carmody, the association again warns that without action, “the results would be further business closures and unemployment”.

“While the Australian economy has enjoyed 103 quarters of continuous growth (1991 to 2017), the general aviation industry has experienced double-digit declines, suffering a 34 per cent decline in pilot numbers and a 35 per cent decline in avgas sales in just the last 10 years,” AOPA Australia’s executive director Benjamin Morgan says in the letter.

He also points to warnings by the Aircraft Maintenance Repair and Overhaul Business Association about the fall in apprenticeships for aircraft maintenance.

AMROBA director Ken Cannane said he was worried about a new low in the number of apprenticeships next year.

“They’ve got to get flying back and general aviation’s got to get back to flying to boost the capability of the maintenance industry because we’re suffering,” he told The Australian.

A CASA spokesman said there were a “range of factors” influencing the statistics. Some maintenance of large aircraft had gone offshore “due to economic factors”, while for small aircraft some general aviation operations had gone to Recreational Aviation Australia (which governs ultralights) with some of those aircraft covered by owner maintenance.

“It would be incorrect to suggest that movements in the number of maintenance or other aviation organisations can be attributed directly to regulatory issues only,” the CASA spokesman said. “Aviation is a complex industry and a simplistic analysis of data is not valid.”

In its “Project Eureka” reform blueprint last year, calling for the revitalisation of the general aviation sector in Australia, AOPA warned that apprentice training had been in “free fall” since 2010.

A 2015 report, the Future of Aircraft Maintenance in Australia, from University of NSW academics said there was a need to “rebuild” the maintenance and maintenance training sectors so Australia could meet its needs across areas including general aviation. Mr Chester previously has said he was confident general aviation could have a “prosperous future” in Australia.

Update with comments in reply to the Oz article: Courtesy Stephen & Sandy -

Stephen
3 hours ago



General Aviation can only have a prosperous future in Australia with government intervention. You note CASA spokespersons quote " It would be incorrect to suggest that movements in the number of maintenance or other aviation organisations can be attributed directly to regulatory issues only,” which means there are regulatory issues attributing to the decline. The regulatory issues include the privatisation of engineering training and assessment with standards that are not compatible with the VET training system. Complex regulatory compliance for maintenance organisations are just the icing on the cake.

Rules that make it harder for people to learn to fly without spending a million dollars (if they can find a flying school left open) are a killer as well.

Privatisation of aerodromes, large and small, with commercial incentives to lease airport land to retail outlets further crushes the playing field.
The price of fuel doesn't help either.

It can be brought back from the brink, but it needs little less greed and a little bit of government understanding and support

---

Alexander
2 hours ago



Minister Chester, like his predecessors, has sat back and let the independent regulator, the (Un) Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) run amok. The independent model (failed) of governance has ruined what was a good and growing industry. In it's 29 years this example of abrogation of Ministerial responsibility has exercised virtually unlimited power to regulate, bully and tax General Aviation (GA) into a shadow of its former self. For the CASA to say it's regulatory actions not the only problem facing GA is just a mealy mouthed excuse.

Back in 1988 CASA was tasked with rewriting the rules. By it's own numbers it has spent hundreds of $millions on the rewrite and so far produced the developed world's most unusable rule set, and, amazingly, still has not finished this rewrite. They have proven that they are incapable.

How do we compare with NZ?

Their rewrite took 5 years and a fraction of cost in embarrassing contrast to our ongoing make work exercise.

How do we compare with the vibrant GA scene in the US? Very poorly.

Example; nearby to me a long established flying school the previous incumbent quit to work for CASA and a new senior instructor attempts to restart this valuable regional service. An $8000 dollar fee upfront, more than twelve months ago, applying for an approval with an operations manual that the Chairman of CASA assured me there was a CASA model manual ready for such applications. Still no approval. In the USA? No fee and that instructor had the right to start immediately. 70% of US pilots are trained by independent instructors.

We are a joke.

Jobs and growth? I choke every time I hear that and think on the thousands of aviators and businesses that have been driven to the wall by the most intransigent and egotistical bureaucratic machine in Canberra. Partly consequent no doubt on the massive pay packets and heated offices for the feather bedded employees of CASA, though substantial numbers are to be found seminaring during winter in warmer climes, Queensland and OS being popular.

Perversely in some ways, the worst of it is that we have not only a shrinking industry but one that is less safe and today not even enough home grown pilots to serve our airlines.

Alex in the Rises.

MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

BITRE aviation activity figures released -

Via Oz Flying:

General aviation: BITRE figures show further decline in flying hours. (Steve Hitchen)

BITRE Report shows Further Decline in GA Hours
21 July 2017

A report released by the Bureau of Infrastructure Transport and Regional Economics (BITRE) has detailed a decrease in general aviation activity for 2015.

Australian Aircraft Activity 2015 is the result of BITRE surveying all VH-registered aircraft owners to gauge hours flown, types of operations and numbers of landings. Data for self-administering organisations such as Recreational Aviation Australia (RAAus) are supplied by those organisations.

The report revealed that total GA flying activity decreased by 28,000 hours compared with the 2014 figures, which translates to a decline of 2.4%. In 2015 1108 thousand hours were reported against the 1136 thousand flown in 2014.

According to the BITRE figures, the largest contributor to the result was the flight training sector, which was down 5.6% from 324 thousand to 306 thousand hours.

The data has prompted the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) and the Aviation Maintenance Repair and Overhaul Business Association (AMROBA) to write to Minister for Infrastructure and Transport Darren Chester and CASA CEO Shane Carmody, laying the blame for the condition of general aviation at the feet of CASA.

"AOPA Australia and AMROBA agree that these declines are being deepened as a result of excess red tape and over-regulation of our industry by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority," the letter says.

"It is essential that the government now accept[s] industry decline as a fact and move to the next more important phase, which is consultation and recovery strategy planning. The AOPA Australia and AMROBA is ready and willing to assist you, we see this as an important opportunity to now put the argument of decline behind, enabling us to work collectively on developing a strategic plan that will enable transition to growth."

AOPA and AMROBA used the BITRE figures to calculate a total decline in flying hours in the 2010-15 period as 18%, which they say equates to a total economic loss of $500 million.

The BITRE report also showed that:

• Operations of sport and recreational aircraft increased 0.2% from 435 thousand to 436 thousand hours
  
• VH-registered aircraft numbers decreased 3.1%
  
• Single-engined fixed-wing numbers were down 2.7% to 8890
  
• Multi-engined fixed-wing numbers were down 4.3% to 2261
  
• Helicopter numbers were down 3.9% to 2011
  
• 2923 aircraft flew no hours in 2015, of which 47% were due to repair, maintenance or restoration
  
• RAAus aircraft numbers were up 4% to 3302, but flying hours reported were down 3% to 166 thousand.
  

BITRE noted that the return for the annual survey that made up the 2015 data was only 79%, which means that 21% of the actual activity remains unknown.

In August, BITRE is expected to complete and present to Minister Chester the results of a General Aviation Study commissioned last year. According to the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development, the study aims to "provide a comprehensive overview of the GA industry and assist in identifying potential actions for both the GA industry and Government to consider."

The complete Australian Aircraft Activity 2015 is available for download from the BITRE website.

Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/lates...VApRWlh.99

MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

Airline & Alphabet pushback on longterm increased security measures -

By 'that man' & Tessa, via the Oz:

Airlines likely to push back against security crackdown

Random bags are subject to checks at Melbourne airport. Picture: Nicole Garmston

• Ean Higgins, Tessa Akerman
  
• The Australian
  
• 8:18PM July 31, 2017
  

Airlines are likely to push back against calls for tougher and more uniform passenger and baggage screening which could reverse their lucrative cost savings programs.

Regional airlines have already told the federal government they believe the current security demands imposed on country airports are too onerous, and would be expected to resist any requirement to extend screening to smaller airports.

Big airlines including Qantas and Virgin have made huge investments in automating passenger and baggage check-in on domestic flights to save on counter staff numbers, and would lose those economies if required to go back to manually checking in passengers and asking them for photo identification.

The alleged Islamic terror plot claimed to have involved a plan to bring down an airliner using some form of bomb or toxic gas device has renewed longstanding claims of glaring gaps in Australian airport security. The four men arrested over the alleged plot were identified on Monday.

Terrorism and security expert Carl Ungerer pointed out years ago that some Australian regional airports which handle hundreds of thousands of passengers a year on regular commercial services have little or no security screening, with passenger metal detectors and baggage X-rays either non-existent or not used all the time.

• read more
  
• Terror cell ‘planned gas attack on plane’Mark Schliebs, Simone Fox Koob, PAUL MALEY
  
• Security crackdown to hit plane departuresSID MAHER
  

“Terrorists will always look for the weakest point in any security system,” Dr Ungerer warned in 2011.

“The current danger is someone taking a bomb on board.”

Passengers at Melbourne airport endure longer than usual queues for security screening. Picture: David Geraghty

But the Regional Aviation Association, representing smaller airlines, in their 2015 submission to a Senate inquiry into airport and aviation security said regional aviation was only barely profitable and big city style security systems were unwarranted.

“Proscriptive legislation tends to create an inefficient one size fits all approach which … required expensive processes and equipment to be introduced into airports and for aircraft operators where the threat does not warrant such measures,” the association said it its submission.

Other security analysts have pointed out that despite the increased measures introduced since Saturday, even at the major airports domestic passengers can still book a ticket online in any name, get a boarding pass automatically at a kiosk, drop check-in bags at an automatic bag drop, and get on a flight without having to once identify themselves to airline ground staff or security.

At Melbourne Airport on Monday travellers were subjected to random bag searches before check in but some passengers felt security could be further strengthened with photo ID requirements on domestic flights.

Toula Sella arrived two and a half hours early for her flight with Virgin to Mildura on Monday but said she still had concerns about security.

She said she thought the current system where people only need to type in a name at a kiosk or a frequent flyer card number was unsafe.

“Anyone could take my card and check in as me,” she said.

Such procedures would be unthinkable on domestic flights in the US, said equity analyst Adam Fleck from Morningstar, saying US passengers are strictly identified at various points in the check-in and security process.

Qantas spokesman Stephen Moynihan would not say how many check-in staff the airline had saved through introducing the kiosks and automated bag drops since 2010, or how the airline would feel if it were required to abandon them and bring back manual check-in and photo ID.

But Mr Fleck said the cost savings for Qantas from reducing check-in staff was enormous.
“Manpower ends up being one of the largest expenses for an airline,” he said.

Mr Fleck cautioned that Australian passengers might want to think twice about whether they wanted the more intrusive US style domestic airport security, and said “Qantas would push through any increased cost from security or personnel onto the customer.”

MTF...P2  

[Peetwo]

CASA again pushes back CAO 48.1 deadline -

Here we go yet another time delaying review, via Oz Aviation:

CASA delays new fatigue rules, announces independent review
August 8, 2017 by australianaviation.com.au 1 Comment


The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) has once again deferred the introduction of new fatigue risk management rules by a further six months, announcing that their implementation will be informed by a new independent review.

The aviation safety regulator says that a team of specialists brought together by professional consultancy services company Dédale Asia Pacific will report back to the CASA board in early 2018 after it benchmarks the new Civil Aviation Order (CAO) 48.1 fatigue risk management rules against those of other leading aviation nations and regulators, including the US, Europe, the UK, Canada and New Zealand.

“This is a group of well qualified people with expertise in the right areas who will look at key fatigue issues and provide independent advice to CASA,” CASA board chair Jeff Boyd said in a statement on Monday.

“The review team will examine feedback previously provided to CASA and will establish a mechanism to engage extensively with industry and other relevant stakeholders to ensure that all views are considered. CASA will ensure that any proposed changes flowing from the review will be subject to appropriate consultation.”

With the review process now in place CASA says it has delayed its deadline for the introduction of CAO 48.1 to October 31 2018, with air operators having to submit their draft operations manual changes or an application for a fatigue risk management system to CASA by April 30 2018.

“The outcomes of the review will provide CASA with an informed basis for finalising the reform of the fatigue rules for air operators and pilots,” the CASA statement reads.

“The specialists have experience and expertise in studying the effects of fatigue on operational performance in a range of safety critical industries, as well as developing and evaluating fatigue models.”

The new CAO 48.1 rules have been welcomed by some aviation groups and condemned by others.

When their introduction was previously delayed, in October 2016, AusALPA, the Australian Airline Pilots Association, said its members were “very concerned” and described fatigue as a “clear safety issue” given how often it had been cited as a contributing factor in recent aviation accidents and incidents.

But the Australian Aviation Associations’ Forum (TAAAF), which comprises peak representative bodies in the local industry, has previously called on CASA to abolish CAO 48.1, arguing that “industry rejects the limited science it is based on, the ignoring of decades of safe operations, the massive costs it will impose and the complexity that will inevitably lead to non-compliance”.

& Bob's comment...

Bob says

August 8, 2017 at 4:23 pm

Why does that not surprise me . Useless regulator run by the airlines .

So the RAAA continues on it's merry way of ascendancy in the land of the Alphabets -


MTF...P2

Ps If you want a perfect example of how an operator/airline can appear to tick all the boxes with a CASA approved FRMS, yet then have major issues of compliance and operability of that FRMS, go no further than the PelAir FRMS pre-ditching. Read & absorb Ben Cook's PelAir FRMS Special Audit Report - 09 CASA_Doc 10_Web

[Kharon]

When – FDS – will it ever end?

The new version of the CAO 48.1 saga is becoming more tedious than flying a full roster ever was and gods alone know what this latest debacle has cost – seriously. Add up the man hours CASA and industry have expended, it’s a monster.

To what end do we need another expensive – independent panel of ‘experts’ ? To what purpose is the effort to look at the systems of ‘other’ nations directed? It is a simple matter, pick up the regulations of the CAA, the FAA; or, CAANZ and decide which system suits best and adopt the bloody thing. Mind you, the old 48 with industry standard’ exemptions included would have saved us all a truck load of time, a shed full of dollars and had the industry bowling along – mostly happy – donkeys years ago.

I could, should the muse descend, write a whole lot about fatigue management and the various ways it affects flight crew – but, ennui and an urge to beat my poor old wooden head against the desk precludes such excesses. I’ll just sit back and wait and wait some more until another fatuous, risible piece of legislation is cast in stone. Then I can sit back, relax and listen to the industry bitch, moan and make a lot of pointless noise – after the die is cast.

Toot – Honestly! FDS! – toot….

[Kharon]

Bucket please -

If ever you needed to see perfect example of why amateur recreational aviation groups are not taken seriously by government and dismissed by CASA the latest from Hitch in Oz flying sketches it out.

"If my mum was here now, she would get RAAus, SAAA, APF, OzRunways, AOPA and AvPlan and bang their heads together! This week in general aviation has been one of the most dire, disappointing and disastrous imaginable. The finger-pointing, accusing and (yes) direct lying that has been going on about the OzRunways sponsorship deal for AirVenture Australia has put the event in jeopardy. Contradiction has followed contradiction, burying the truth deep beneath a pile of vested interest and political posturing. And once again, GA loses; fractured with rivalry and opinion as various different people claim to represent the best interests of the aviation community."

This sort of thing reflects badly on the professional aviation groups who are lumped into the catchall of General Aviation (GA); especially those  folks with millions invested, struggling with the day to day problems of staying afloat.

This sort of behaviour allows CASA a free kick in the divide and manipulate championship, which is a handy foil to calls for reform and provides support for their dismissive attitude.

Even the term ‘GA’ is a diminutive and disparaging term; some of the operations classed as GA are world class, run by professionals who have some serious skin in the game. Every time there is a breakout of petty, mindless squabbles from the recreational outfits it simply makes life more difficult for the holders of Air Operators Certificates trying to present a case for regulatory reform and expansion of the industry. Investors take a serious view of what they may or may not put their money and faith in. Would you invest in a rabble which can’t seem to arrive at a cohesive conclusion on any basic important subject – i.e. medicals, ASIC, flight standards, training, etc. It is a long list, which has stood for a long time – unchallenged.

Until this GA sector puts ego and petty politics aside, it will remain background noise, easily dismissed and manipulated. Personally I could care less if there was never another privately owned aircraft, flown by a private pilot loose in the sky; the contribution is minimal. When that behaviour has a negative effect on struggling businesses operating aircraft professionally it’s time to say something.  Be part of the solution or remain as a big part of the problem; it’s your call.

Toot - bloody hell - toot.......

[Peetwo]

The importance of strong Alphabet advocacy.

The following JDA article provides a classic example of the advantages a strong, professional industry association can provide to industry stakeholders in their dealings with the regulator: 

NATA’s excellent service to the PC-12 operators


Posted By: Sandy Murdock August 15, 2017

NATA’s PC-12 Compliance Resolution

Guidance for Air Charter Operators

Washington, DC, August 4, 2017 – Today, the National Air Transportation Association (NATA) announced the resolution of a compliance issue stopping air charter operators from adding certain Pilatus PC-12 aircraft to their certificates. Guidance documents published today now offer charter operators a clear pathway to utilizing these aircraft.

Many people may wonder what trade associations really do. All dues paying members know the exact amount of the dues. Some may realize that the association executives are frequently testify in hearings, but those unfamiliar with Washington are not aware of the direct benefits of such activities. Good associations create training programs, attract group discounts for relevant services and hold informative meetings. All are good benefits, but the above-linked article demonstrates the best of association work.



The National Air Transportation Association heard from its members that “that a local FAA office had denied requests to add to their operating certificate several PC-12 aircraft intended for passenger operations.” Because the Pilatus PC-12 is a single-engine aircraft, passenger operations require compliance with certain additional Part 135 regulations, including specific electrical system requirements (14 CFR 135.163(f)). It held a series of meeting with other Part 135 members and learned that the problem was broader than one FSDO.
Then, John McGraw, NATA Director of Regulatory Affairs, took the right action; he met with the FAA headquarters staff with jurisdiction over this issue. He brought the Pilatus technical experts to these discussions. The electrical loads of the PC-12 was reviewed and after sharing important information, they were able to come to a practical resolution. McGraw commented “the FAA has published an information for operators document, InFO 170011, clarifying the process for evaluating certain older PC-12 aircraft for passenger-carrying operations under Part 135. Concurrently, the FAA issued new inspector guidance reflecting the same information and procedures as outlined in the InFO.”

First, this is a classic example of the leverage which NATA provides. Having learned that members had encountered field opposition, McGraw and the OEM representatives were able to show the FAA headquarters staff exactly how the PC-12 complies with §135.163(f). Instead of 5-20 individual Part 135 operators working through the regulatory maze, one initiative resulted in a practical solution. If the individual certificate holders each pursued relief through a number of FSDOs, it is quite possible that some would have succeeded and others might have failed—and the reasons for the yes’s and the no’s might not have been consistent.


Second, the NATA tactic increased the likelihood of a positive result. By bringing the private sector subject matter experts to meet directly with the FAA Washington staff most knowledgeable on regulatory and technical issues, the discussion would be focused on the critical points. The FAA staff in the field, who did not write the FARs and are not as educated on airworthiness, do not feel comfortable making these sorts of decisions.



Third, the path through your FSDO or ACHDO to a successful outcome involves risks. If your PMI insists that the PC-12 is non-compliant and if you then tell her/him that you want to appeal, there may be consequences. FAA senior staff have implemented processes to ensure consistency, and ostensibly to minimize the sting of a reversal, it is quite possible that your PMI will resent being found wrong. Having been exposed as not THE expert on 14 CFR §135.__ does not reflect well on that person’s future promotability. Given the penumbra of a PMI’s power, there may be consequences for showing him/her up.



The NATA to headquarters route does not link PMI#! to the error; multiple PMIs were involved: the omniscient Washington folks made the decision; thus, PMI#1 is less likely to later find some fault.

This is one of the primary reasons why NATA and other trade associations with staff familiar with the FAA are worth those dues. They can resolve common issues for members with the above-described interventions.

MTF...P2

[Kharon]

Whimsy, Fallen Angels a ramble.

Friend and neighbour had a little get together last evening; just the usual to celebrate a birthday; something nothing, except a pleasant evening, chatting with fiends. I wandered home later with a head full of questions – serves me right for ‘earwigging’. Three Mums and Dads had a table in the garden not far from where I was sitting – they started discussing a friend of theirs who lived out of town with a sick child and the problems of getting said child to medical appointments. ‘Angel Flight’ was mentioned and of course my ears pricked up.

I’ve always thought AF was a bloody good idea – in theory. Just the same thing as if I ran a neighbours or a friends Kiddie to the vet in the car, just give ‘em a lift – to help out. There are no special qualification requirements or insurance on the car – just throw ‘em in, strap ‘em down and off you go – easy as. These folks weren’t so ambivalent. I thought it was just the usual concern folk have about flying in ‘light’ aircraft – hell, I’ve even had folk worried about flying in small jets and the peerless King Air – it’s a factor; but, usually at the end of a journey – most of the surface fears have been assuaged – the deeper ones are out of my hands. I digress.

The long and the short of it was that they almost unanimously agreed that they would not allow their children, or, indeed their nearest and dearest to be flown by AF. The statistics of road accidents are horrendous, when compared to that of light aircraft travel – until you bring it down to a per capita base; then there is a case to be examined. One of the Dad’s made mention of this. The thing grabbed my attention was that this group was ‘new’ to the idea and had it not been for the remote friend, would have no idea the service existed and so I was probably hearing their concerns voiced and discussed for the first time. Enlightening.

Anyway – it got me thinking. I’ll probably bring it up for a full on debate at a BRB soon, but I thought a ramble on AP may help clarify some of the thinking elements; for example:-

Weather regions. Is it worth considering dividing the continent into ‘weather’ based regions and making a rule set for those. Take a trip from say Bairnsdale to Moorabin; choose your weapon – lets take the Bonanza – as a standard, (light twin speed, roomy, comfortable etc.) with some performance flexibility. On a good day the journey is a doddle, but; mostly wind and weather are a factor across that region; turbulence another consideration; high ground must be considered – in short the SE region can and does produce conditions which preclude ‘easy’ journey – not always – but it is on the cards. So would it be sensible to specify IFR qualifications and capability – particularly for a return journey which involved ‘waiting’ time; or, when the forecast looked ‘iff’y’; or, the flight could possibly run into daylight limitations?

You can group ‘areas’ into similar regions, particularly on the East coast – even some of the short sectors can be demanding on both man and machine – when the weather is a factor. Its all well and good on a reasonable day, almost too easy. Jumping into the venerable 172 on a peerless day and running for 90 minutes with a light load is a great thing; but what about when there is a delay for the return, the headwinds increase, the cloud base lowers, or the smoke and dust thicken up; what then? I reckon it’s fair enough for those familiar to have a go at getting home; run the gauntlet and tell the tale at the bar later – I do. But what of those not familiar with such doings? I just don’t know, but how would someone who has been or is ill take to such banging and clashing, bouncing about and increased level of fear feel about such a return journey. The other option is to delay the flight which means transport and motels and expense and time. As neat a puzzle as you could ask for.

It is all highly subjective and personal – but AF have lost a couple of rounds to weather and darkness. I am not knocking AF or those who donate their time and aircraft – I am concerned that in the absence of a ‘system’ a heavy handed regulator may, through force of public opinion, be obliged to step in and that may just put the hat on all of it. Anyway, I believe AF is worth the candle and the subject is worthy of some serious discussion and thinking. Now included on the agenda for the next BRB agenda.

Toot – just saying - toot.

[Peetwo]

Whose the King of the castle?

Intercepted the following tweet from M&M's dept yesterday (Ps Note who is at the head of the table - ):

@infra_regional attend the Aviation Strategic Leaders Forum together with leading industry bodies to discuss future of the aviation industry

Probably more notable is who is not at that table? For example I note (just nod now -   ) 6D Noddy Chester is there but where is Big Ears...

H'mm I wonder if they're discussing how best to gloss over the soon to be released GA BITRE stats...

Finally why does that scene look so familiar??

Quote from Lead Balloon off the UP:

Next thing you'll be telling us that public infrastructure should be returned to public ownership!


Back when airports and ground transport infrastructure were owned and run by public institutions, how many millionaires were making their millions out of that infrastructure? None! See how inefficient that is?

Now there are plenty of millionaires making their millions milking these assets. That's efficient!

Utopia is a documentary.

---

---

   

- MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

Good news story, for a change -

Via the Cowra Council online newsletter:

Fly Oz new home for University of Thailand flight training

Cowra flight training school Fly Oz Pty Ltd, celebrated the signing of a formal agreement with the Nakhon Phanom University of Thailand this morning to become the Australian flight training facility for the University.

"This venture is the culmination of many months of negotiations and meetings, and is an example of the cooperative and valuable international relationships that are possible between regional communities and international organisations," said Cowra Mayor, Cr Bill West.

After initial discussions, a Thai delegation visited Fly Oz in July 2016 to inspect their aircraft, the airport and training facilities.

Subsequent deliberations and several trips to Thailand have seen Fly Oz partners Lyn Gray and Mark Dixon, progress an international agreement between Nakhon Phanom University and Fly Oz to undertake the flight training of Thai pilots at Cowra Airport.
"Fly Oz is to be congratulated as an excellent example of regional entrepreneurial skills" said Cr West.

The first group of Thai students will arrive in Cowra later in 2017 to complete the Commercial Licence and Instructor Rating training and certification section of their study.

Ends

MTF...P2

[Kharon]

Put PC where the sun don’t shine.

No names, no pack drill but I had a coffee and a ‘chat’ with a couple of people ‘in the know’ and directly concerned with the latest round of pushing and shoving going on between some of the alphabet groups. Sandy can jump up and down all he likes about being ‘PC’ and ambivalent toward the children squabbling; but not I.

Those who know – exactly – what has been attempted and from whom the edicts have flowed need no explanation from me; they were there, read the letters and took part in the ruckus.

It is a disgusting tale, one of serious concern; alas, not mine to tell. I can however say that it has been and remains detrimental and divisive. Not only undermining solidarity, but it also casts an ugly shadow across the entire spectrum of non airline operations. When a bunch of ‘fly-for-fun’ folks can be cynically used to this purpose, it’s time to take the gloves off. The AOPA represents ‘aircraft owners and pilots’, which includes ‘commercial’ operations and operators. It is these folk who will suffer the most from the latest vicious, vindictive, cynical manipulation, to the detriment of the larger GA operations. It is nuts, this performance at a critical time when there should be solidarity on the ‘big ticket’ items and not providing a nice fat buffer for the minister to hide behind.  Think on. They should be named, shamed, dragged out in public and lambasted – not within my remit; but I wish it were. Oh, how I wish it were.

Selah.

[Peetwo]

Is Chester making Recreational Aviation sector a political football?  

I am not privy to what is going on amongst the Alphabets - see LMH last week - but it would seem that RAAus is in the miniscule's favour and therefore in ascendancy within the Alphabet's.

The latest revelation that (the other self-professed ministerial 'canary in the coal mine') the ATSB will, when time and resources permit, provide investigatory support to the recreational alphabets in carrying out accident investigations, sounds like a proactive initiative. However I am not totally convinced that Chester doesn't have ulterior motives and this RAAus olive branch is merely a cover for political leverage in the argy bargy world of Federal vs State politics...          

Via the Oz today:

ATSB flags investigation role in recreational sector

There is increasing pressure for ATSB involvement in sport and recreational flying.

• Annabel Hepworth
  
• The Australian
  
• 12:00AM September 8, 2017
  [img=0x0]https://i1.wp.com/pixel.tcog.cp1.news.com.au/track/component/author/d4b891a093ad6ddc703117011dc4fd61/?esi=true&t_product=the-australian&t_template=s3/austemp-article_common/vertical/author/widget&td_bio=false[/img]
  

The nation’s transport safety ­investigator has foreshadowed it could potentially get involved in more investigations into safety matters involving sport and recreation planes.

In its new corporate plan, the Australian Transport Safety ­Bureau says there is an “increasing expectation from some industry advocates and coroners that the ATSB become more ­involved with investigations in the sport and recreation sector”.

“Resources permitting, the ATSB may become involved where there is significant third-party risk and a high likelihood of identifying contributing factors that are not generally well understood.”

Recreational aviation includes ultralight planes, motorised gliders, gyrocopters, paragliders and powered parachutes.

The position is in line with the government’s response to the 2014 Aviation Safety Regulation Review that the ATSB investigate accidents involving the sector on an “exception basis” where there were resources.

Since May 2014 the ATSB has investigated or has provided technical assistance to 11 incidents and accidents involving sport and recreational aircraft. As well, the body has researched ­engine failures and malfunctions in light planes, both VH and recreation­ally registered.

Earlier this year ATSB chief commissioner Greg Hood said the growth in recreational flying, coupled with growing awareness of reporting requirements, had seen the number of safety incidents reported to the ATSB increase more than tenfold between 2006 and 2015.

Under the current system, sport and recreational flying have “self-administering” bodies responsible for safety matters, although police and coroners might also be involved in investigations.

Recreational Aviation Australia (RAAus) chairman Michael Monck said his group had to “foot the bill” when it transported people to investigate fatalities.

“Obviously we have to foot the bill,” Mr Monck said. “We are happy to accept the responsibility. We would love financial support and we value the support we ­receive from the ATSB.”

Beyond “boots-on-the-ground type support”, the group wants support “in relation to the actual ability to investigate an accident”.

Specifically, it is after the standing or authority to help ­investigate accidents under the Transport Safety Investigation Act.

“If the ATSB elects to investigate an accident, they have every right to walk into the accident scene and conduct an investigation. This is the part where we struggle because we don’t. We don’t have any legal powers. So we basically attend the accident at the pleasure of the police or the coroner depending on who owns the investigation.’’

RAAus told the government’s aviation safety review in 2014 that the ATSB had “considerable ­resources and authority” compared to itself.

Australian Sports Aviation Confederation president Mike Close welcomed the comments in the ATSB’s corporate plan, saying that “an extra pair of eyes, experienced eyes, is invaluable”.

The Australian Sport Rotorcraft Association, which told the Forsyth review that the cost of investigating gyro accidents was a major financial burden on the ­organisation, pointed to concerns about funding.

ASRA president Rick Elliott said his organisation was in the process of developing a formal ­arrangement with NSW Police for when it helps investigate accidents, which he said could prove a “big win” for both sides.

“We have the expertise to be able to help investigate accidents,” Mr Elliott said.
“Our biggest problem is that there is no funding for it.”

He said that if more investigations were required, there would need to be extra funding from the Civil Aviation Safety Authority.

“We are a volunteer organisation,” he said.

The 2014 review recommended that the ATSB investigate as many fatal accidents in sport and recreational aviation as its resources would allow.

MTF...P2 

Ayup; once the accident/incident count gets up toward 200 per annum; may be it's time to take a hand and have the ATSB actually do something - useful - just for a change., P7 edit::::

[thorn bird]

Just a thought P2 fleshing out various scenarios as to why the ATSB is suddenly taking an interest in sports aviation, they were completely oblivious to it up to now.

Could it be, that the self serving autocrats at CAsA have finally realised they have raped and pillaged their way through general aviation to the point where there's not much left to justify their existence, maybe the BITR report, yet to be released contains some shocks.

As the ATSB is the bastard child of CAsA and malleable, some justification could be made via ATSB "investigations" that sports aviation is inherently unsafe and in desperate need of the hand of regulation.  

"Bing!" TA DAH, a whole new hunting ground for embuggerance opens up.

Yeah okay. As K would say back to my knitting.

[Peetwo]

Is Chester making Recreational Aviation sector a political football?  

I am not privy to what is going on amongst the Alphabets - see LMH last week - but it would seem that RAAus is in the miniscule's favour and therefore in ascendancy within the Alphabet's.

The latest revelation that (the other self-professed ministerial 'canary in the coal mine') the ATSB will, when time and resources permit, provide investigatory support to the recreational alphabets in carrying out accident investigations, sounds like a proactive initiative. However I am not totally convinced that Chester doesn't have ulterior motives and this RAAus olive branch is merely a cover for political leverage in the argy bargy world of Federal vs State politics...          

Via the Oz today:

ATSB flags investigation role in recreational sector

---

 

Ayup; once the accident/incident count gets up toward 200 per annum; may be it's time to take a hand and have the ATSB  actually do something - useful - just for a change., P7 edit::::

---

Just a thought P2 fleshing out various scenarios as to why the ATSB is suddenly taking an interest in sports aviation, they were completely oblivious to it up to now.

Could it be, that the self serving autocrats at CAsA have finally realised they have raped and pillaged their way through general aviation to the point where there's not much left to justify their existence, maybe the BITR report, yet to be released contains some shocks.

As the ATSB is the bastard child of CAsA and malleable, some justification could be made via ATSB "investigations" that sports aviation is inherently unsafe and in desperate need of the hand of regulation.  

"Bing!" TA DAH, a whole new hunting ground for embuggerance opens up.

Yeah okay. As K would say back to my knitting.

Somewhat cynical but IMO very real comments from P7 & TB -

While considering what may actually be revealed in the BITRE GA report, I note the following short but disturbing paragraph under the heading of 'Aviation' in the ATSB Corporate report:

In General Aviation2, movements have decreased in certain parts of the sector – particularly flying training – which has led to an overall decrease in movements over the last 10 years. Conversely, there has been an upward variation in the accident rate. The ATSB investigates approximately 60 per cent of accidents and 30 per cent of serious incidents involving general aviation aircraft. Additionally, some of the recurring factors that feature in General Aviation accidents are included in the ATSB’s Safety
Watch priorities.

 No comment required except to say - Q/ What is the source for the ATSB's figures? - BITRE perhaps??

MTF...P2

[Kharon]

The worm turns.

Legend has it that Marie Antoinette kicked off the French revolution by telling the hoi-polloi to bugger off and eat cake. Conversely, great leaders like Churchill understood the people and could manage to move them to extraordinary heights and efforts. Our Darren 6D ain’t quite as pretty as old Marie and no where near as bright as Winston; but he has managed an extraordinary feat. One which every other minister and DoIT leader has carefully avoided for decades; unification of an industry group, led by the AOPA. No smoke, no mirrors, I wonder why ever not?



Never, in field of Australian aviation conflict has so much been done by one man to stuff up the status quo. Well done 6D – you’ve pissed ‘em all off, the whole bunch, now you must answer for your purblind folly. I shall try to explain it to you, just so as you understand why resignation is your only honourable course; redemption is out of the question. You see, setting fire to ones feet to keep ones hands warm has never been a very good idea.

History first: recent, the Pel-Air incident and Senate inquiry exposed the tip of an ugly, dangerous, government sponsored iceberg. The real CASA and ATSB were revealed for what they truly are – official – in the Senate. Everyone knew it, but fear and the lack of a platform to voice their anger prevented reform and change taking place. Pel-Air prompted the ASSR, which was a genteel, civilised document, offering a way to repair the damage and move forward. Had the ASRR been honestly taken up and supported, matters aeronautical would have improved, quietly, with the blood letting done in private. It was a beacon of hope held dear, by those who would have been satisfied by a quiet, no fuss revolution. Hopes of real reform were high, the mood buoyant. Those hopes were cynically crushed, the light of meaningful reform ruthlessly extinguished. You can’t do that to folk – not without some sort of push back.

Where it is.



Moving on to the present day – we must look at the gross errors you have made. For a start, you fail (dismally) to understand pilots; particularly the Australian version; bad blue. In secundus, you have failed, miserably to understand why the long, (30 years) loud calls for reform have not abated. Then you must ask why it has been so? Once you understand these things you may glean the reason for the underlying anger, which has developed into open outrage. The final part of your lesson is the AOPA gathering at Orange, yesterday.

Where it should have been.



This could be the beginning of the long awaited revolution – and you, Darren 6D, caused it. Well, you and whatever fools you listen to; those who provide slick, easy escape paths, all of which lead, eventually, to an untenable position. By excluding and actively trying to destroy the AOPA a weapon has been forged. How long do you think it’s going to be before the Aero clubs and their members realise that by using one AOC and the provisions for ‘remote’ base operations the call for independent instructors may be satisfied, like it or not. When they quite legally run around the false objections and return learning to fly, in country centres, to  part of a vibrant industry section, what then? Do the math; AOPA, without attracting any further support, is now a major force (by the numbers) and growing, determinedly so; with lots of support. Dare you keep sulking and pretending they ain’t real? Don’t forget the USA chapter have weighed in, you are staring down a big number of people now. Bluff, bluster and bull-shit will only get you a ticket on the train wreck.

Well done 6D – your arrogance, ineptitude and ignorance have released the force that thirty years of divide and conquer has carefully kept quiescent; unification, aligned anger and the numbers to make it stick. Bravo - duck wit.

Well done AOPA and all those who attended. May the force be with you.

Toot - toot.

[Peetwo]

On the slow death of local airports -

Via the other Aunty today :

Will Australia's small airports soon be a thing of the past?
RN
By Lyn Gallacher for The Law Report

Posted about 6 hours agoTue 3 Oct 2017, 4:53pm


Photo: "I used to do aerobatics over our home": Ron Dickenson has been a pilot since 1944. (ABC RN: Michael Shirrefs)


There's not too many aviators left with Ron Dickenson's kind of logbook. He's 91, and has been a pilot since 1944.

Now, it seems his flying career could mark the rise and fall of general aviation in Australia.

Across the country, tiny airports are at risk. Sixty-one per cent of small aerodromes ran at a loss in 2014-15.

With expenditure expected to rise by 38 per cent in the next decade, the numbers don't look good. But there was a golden age of Australian aviation and Mr Dickenson was part of it.

When he received his first pilot licence, it simply read: "Licence to fly flying machines."
"We did anything. There must have been regulations for the airlines, but they didn't seem to apply to private planes," Mr Dickenson said.



Photo: Times have changed since Mr Dickenson first started flying in the 1940s. (ABC RN: Michael Shirrefs)

"I used to do aerobatics over our home in Kew [in Melbourne]. Mum would come out and she'd wave a towel or a sheet, then I'd fly back again."

But security and safety considerations have put an end to these fun-filled days of aviation. The sky is no longer what it was.

In 1944, when Mr Dickenson began his training in the air force, the military was where the development of most new planes and aviation technologies took place.

Today that's not necessarily the case — with hybrid and electric planes being developed by the private sector.

Some are already on the market, but these short-range planes need an aviation ecosystem in which to operate — which means small airfields to land at.

In the 1980s and 1990s, the Federal Government handed over the control of hundreds of tiny airports to city councils under a scheme known as ALOP, the Aerodrome Local Ownership Plan.



Photo: Yarram airport in eastern Victoria is one of many facing an uncertain future. (ABC RN: Michael Shirrefs)

ALOP came with the caveat that the councils were not permitted to sell, lease or dispose of the aerodromes without the written consent of the secretary of the Department of Transport.

To some councils, this gift looked more like a burden, because it's the council that now needs to find the funding for runway overhauls, landing lights and fencing.

The airfield at Kempsey on the mid north coast of NSW is a striking example.

In a recent judgment involving a collision between a kangaroo and a landing aeroplane at the airport, the judge found in favour of the plane owner.

The Kempsey Shire Council was liable for the cost of a new propeller worth almost $200,000.

The judge said the council knew about the kangaroo problem and should have put up a fence, which would have cost $100,000.

The council argued the money could have been better spent elsewhere and is appealing the decision.

Development vs. aviation

The Australian Airports Association suggests as many as 50 per cent of Australia's regional airports may be operating at a loss each year.

Many local councils can see more revenue in selling the land to real estate developers.
On Melbourne's outskirts, airports like Geelong, Philip Island, Pakenham, Berwick, Wallan, Welshpool, Melton, Moorooduc and Labertouche have all gone this way.
The situation is not much better in NSW or Queensland.



Photo: It's estimated more than half of Australia's regional airports are operating at a loss. (ABC RN: Michael Shirrefs)

In remote Australia, where cars are simply not an option, the problem of airport closures is not so bad.

Under the terms of ALOP, councils were legally required to keep airports as airports, but some have been mothballed prior to sale, forestalling any challenges.

This is how the situation in Kempsey could be heading, as well as in Gympie, Queensland, and in the Victorian towns of Mildura and Yarram.

What do we stand to lose?

Aviators like Mr Dickenson are having to explain to the wider community how small airport closures affect them.

The benefits of tiny airports are harder to define than those of their large counterparts because they don't measure passenger movements or represent regular flying schedules.
Yet they are needed for postal services, water bombing activity, air ambulances, the SES, police, tourism, crop dusting, survey planes, flight training schools and simple connectivity.

General aviation has long been a home of ideas, where knowledge, experience and innovation have helped drive the future of flying forward.

In Europe, tiny airports are being used to develop new environmentally and economically efficient aviation technologies.

But that culture is absent on Australia's increasingly deserted small runways.

&.. RN radio:

Tiny Airports in trouble
http://auntypru.com/wp-content/uploads/2...3_1730.mp3


Tuesday 3 October 2017 5:30PM (view full episode)

[b]IMAGE:[/b] FLYING OVER LILYDALE AIPORT, VICTORIA (MICHAEL SHIRREFS)

Globally aviation is booming, so why are tiny airports facing an uncertain future? According to the aviation community, the right regulatory framework is not in place. Tiny airports are where training, crop dusting, mail delivery, maintenance, banking and emergency services, survey, charter and recreational flying takes place. They are also centres of innovation, and many in the industry are concerned that if the tiny airport ecosystem breaks down Australia could miss out the next chapter of aviation history; a cleaner, cheaper, safer flying future.

A special report from Lyn Gallacher, RN Producer and novice pilot.
[b]IMAGE:[/b] ROBIN SIDEBOTHAM IN THE HANGAR WITH HIS PLANE (MICHAEL SHIRREFS)

[b][b]IMAGE:[/b] RN PRODUCER LYN GALLACHER AFTER HER FIRST FLIGHT(SUPPLIED LYN GALLACHER)[/b]

MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

Flying School alliance to cut costs on Part 142 -

Via Hitch off the Yaffa:

Avia Aviation's Senior Base Pilot Darren Schmidt can see the benefits of APTA membership. (Steve Hitchen)

Flying Schools choose APTA as Part 142 Solution
6 October 2017

Moorabbin-based Australian Pilot Training Alliance (APTA) is gaining momentum as smaller flying schools begin to feel the bite of having to transition to CASR Part 142 rules.
APTA provides upper-level key personnel oversight services to its members, which in turn enables those flying schools to make the move to Part 142 more easily and with less cost.

Part 142 has been written to include the coveted 150-hour CPL course that is currently sought after by most CPL students, but the move has left smaller flying schools stranded with the 200-hour course covered by Part 141 because they simply can't afford the level of management and control demanded by CASA to be approved to Part 142.

"Part 141 was written for the smaller flying schools," APTA CEO Glen Buckley says, "and Part 142 is for the larger academies like those with university affiliations."

Buckley is the owner of Melbourne Flight Training (MFT), a Part 141 school, but was facing with significant costs simply to retain the level of business that he already had.

"We would have loved to stay in that environment [Part 141]; it's much cheaper to operate than a Part 142 school," Buckley said, "however, we got 95% of our income from the 150-hour CPL, which we were going to have to walk away from unless we found a way to move to Part 142."

Buckley started APTA to enable MFT and other small flying schools to share the cost of competing with the larger academies that can more easily comply with Part 142 and soak up the students who wanted to take the fast path to a CPL.

One of those smaller schools was Avia Aviation.

"Joining APTA gives us the advantage of competing with other schools," says Avia Senior Base Pilot and Grade 1 Instructor Darren Schmidt, "especially with access to the 150-hour CPL syllabus, because we can now run the integrated courses whereas we couldn't under Part 141.

"Our students gain because they have to pay for 50 hours less training to get their CPL. That's huge benefit of joining APTA."

According to Buckley, APTA membership holds benefits well beyond just Part 142, as even the cost of complying with Part 141 and the Part 61 Licensing regulations is commonly estimated at around $250,000. He believes leveraging the management expertise of APTA means members schools can now assure compliance at a much lower cost.

APTA currently has five member companies, which can also share resources between themselves, but Buckley is looking for more to join the group. The current APTA members are:

• Melbourne Flight Training
  
• TVSA Flight Training
  
• Avia Aviation
  
• Learn to Fly
  
• Flight Standards
  

"All members operate under one common set of seven manuals, with supplemental Base Operations Manuals for each member to account for the differences in school practices," Buckley points out. "APTA members also don't have to cease operations when key people–such as the CFI–leave, because they are still covered by the APTA Air Operators Certificate."

Both Part 141 and Part 142 schools have until 31 August 2018 to completely transition to the new rules.

More information is on the APTA website

Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/lates...ZLQR8Uu.99

Still bemuses me that such lengths have to be taken by grass root aviation businesses just to lessen the huge red tape costs inflicted by a big R-regulator...



MTF...P2

[thorn bird]

This is absolutely lateral thinking. The coiffured clown do nothing Darren, has already indicated his capture by the Mystic of safety scam.

The reality that CAsA unions run the aviation agenda, much like the teachers union run education, means there's little chance of any meaningful reform. They will sabotage anything that anyone tries to implement that attempts to improve efficiency and change the status quo.
Think of part 61.
The intention was to simplify and improve pilot standards and reduce costs. What these people morphed it into is a complete cluster***k of unintelligible gobbledygook that saps the life blood out of an already fragile industry. The same could be said of part 141 and 142 which could perhaps explain the exodus of flying training to more sensible countries. People will just have to get used to no aviation and illiterate kids, unless they want to import aviation personnel from overseas (already Happening) or export their kids offshore to gain a proper education (already beginning to happen).

This Co-Op idea, if you can't beat them, join them, has some merit. AOC's are currently being shared, perhaps not in a formal sense, but there are owners attaching their aircraft to an AOC holder to operate on their behalf, the costs of doing so are bad enough but pale into insignificance compared with trying to obtain their own AOC.

Given the obscene costs of gaining an AOC and the huge regulatory cost burden of maintaining it, this co-op model could provide an answer by sharing the red tape, and the myriad of unproductive key personnel required by CAsA to match their own bloated bureaucracy. It will not however alleviate the extraordinary costs of including an aircraft on an AOC.

The old saying "there's strength in numbers" may also come into play. As we know smaller aviation companies are in reality Ghost managed by CAsA FOI's. They decide, from the CEO down who is fit and proper to occupy the roles in the company CAsA decide are necessary. Gum nut airlines, their imagined operator with a couple of small turbines and Navajo's had something like twenty Admin staff. There is also evidence that they decide which pilots may be employed. Anyone on their shit list doesn't get a look in, the chief pilot is powerless to implement operational practices, in some cases expressly contradicting manufacturers recommended practices, without their express approval, all care, but of course no liability or responsibility.

A larger outfit administering an AOC covering a multitude of operators could put a brake on these excesses to a certain extent and provide some protection against retributive action when a small operator is confronted with some of their more ridiculous and patently unsafe directions but dare not push back.

The danger in all this is CAsA, confronted by intransigence to their direction, may attempt to take out the core personnel and bring down the whole shooting match down. The commercial side of GA, even if everyone was on the same page, would not have the resources the big airlines do to face them down if it came to real stoush and unfortunately they know it.

[Kharon]

Thought to action and ‘legal’.

"All members operate under one common set of seven manuals, with supplemental Base Operations Manuals for each member to account for the differences in school practices," Buckley points out. "APTA members also don't have to cease operations when key people–such as the CFI–leave, because they are still covered by the APTA Air Operators Certificate."

How long now have the BRB been saying ‘get smart’ use the rules and the system to gain ‘independent’ instructors in the rural areas?. APTA have shown one way and it’s a brilliant idea; bravo. But what of the ‘Aero clubs’ without and instructor ‘on tap’?

The notion of one outfit, like say AOPA holding a certificate and establishing remote bases for ‘their’ operations has real merit and is worthy of serious consideration. If CASA can’t or will not grant the easement needed; then working within the existing rule set to provide ‘instruction’ at bases where the revenue stream will not support a full time ‘school’ or instructor is ‘do-able’.

Anyway, great stuff from APTA, top marks for patience, diligence, intelligence , fortitude and industry assistance. Thank you.

Toot toot.