[Kharon]

The IOS have their say.

Ah Wombat; quite correct, forgotten happy memories of Fred and Flo at the Steam Packet hotel, the laughs, the hopes, dreams and of course the solutions to the woes of the world, washed down with fine Ale in good company. When "we were young and free."

All grown up now; alas. Older, wiser and experienced in the wicked ways of the real world. Response to McDoolittle's trite complaints being a prime example of the industry's 'weltschmerz'.

I cannot be bothered to list every single 'inquiry' and investigation in the aviation saga over the last three decades. To even estimate the man hours invested and private funds expended responding to these events. Let's just say it has been a staggering amount and leave it at that. Almost the entire industry got behind the Pel-Air inquiry, Fawcett, Xenophon et al did a magnificent job; which led to the ASSR; and the Rev. Forsyth did the honours in good faith. We all held our breath, not daring to make a sound lest any chance of meaningful reform vanished in a puff of smoke, lost in the mirrors of Sleepy Hollow. I forget the accurate numbers now, but the Senate committee put up some 60 odd 'recommendations'; the ASSR about the same; all dismissed as 'opinion' - agreed to in principal and sent down to the tomb of good intentions. Nothing, absolutely nothing changed for the better; despite the incredible cost in time, effort and money; expended in good faith.

Now McDolittle wants to make a comeback on the aviation band wagon. Two years to reaffirm that which has stood out like the proverbial dog's balls. Angel Flight, despite the rhetoric still stuck with silly requirements; Buckley another victim of the system to add to a very long list of those treated to the great embuggerance.

Very few were fooled by the McDolittle sudden application of political reverse thrust; internal party politics not being that closely guarded a secret. Yet, 'we' are now to be the source of McDoolittle's 'disappointment'. Well, you show me yours Senator and I'll show you mine, alongside a disappointed industry's. Don't bleat on at industry - get the DPM to include the changes demanded writ into his 'statement of expectations' and make it stick- that would be of more value than another few days spent drafting yet another submission doomed to end up in the basement to rot.

But please; don't use industry's lack of enthusiasm for yet another two year wait to arrive back in the same place for your failure to be effective or useful. L&K the Ills of Society.

Toot - toot.....

[thorn bird]

K, on the question of Swine.

I recall a radio program from my youth (a long time ago) No TV in those days nor were we cursed with todays social media (Cess pit). It was a must listen to for the whole family not just a pimply faced adolescent.

One of my favourite characters was Bluebottle, who's exclamation "You rotten Swine you" always cracked me up.

What would Bluebottle make of our brilliant bunch of bureaucrats today?

"Thinks."...... "The rotten swine are a bunch of Goons!"

As much as the alleged privatisation of our airports was and is a complete fraud perpetrated on the public of Australia, which only a royal commission would stand any chance of unravelling. So to has CASA defrauded the people of Australia by propagating unfit for purpose regulations, costing hundreds of millions of public money, which is killing off an industry for no particular reason than an impossible to define nor quantify nor justify myth of safety. Again there is no chance of unravelling this travesty without a royal commission.

Look no further than New Zealand, they were in much the same place as Australia is today. A royal commission exposed the truth and precipitated true reform which set them up with highly regarded regulation envied around the world and copied throughout our region.

I believe it is time for Australia to swallow it's pride, admit we failed and are still failing.

We set out to adopt US FAR's, the most mature effective regulations in the world, made a very good beginning, then for some inexplicable reason, swapped horses mid race to embrace completely new unproven EASA regulations from the most bureaucratic governed region in the world. Those reg's subsequently proved an utter disaster and had to be largely rewritten. Did we learn nothing from that decision? Apparently not.

[Kharon]

Once upon a time,

In a land not too far away;

Within an isolated bubble;

Are you sitting comfortably? Indulge me; for I must begin. There are several bright, happy faces sitting about my stove, two per dog and the cat a moving 'cuddle' for those it will not scratch - "Story" is the request (nay, demand) and there will be no peace until that which is 'requested' is delivered. And so we begin:-

Many, many years ago, when horse and buggy were 'the' mode of transport; a bunch of folk congregated on a lake shore - "what a great spot" they opined - "we shall build a model city on this spot." And so, using money squeezed from an unsuspecting populace, they began to build their version of 'Cloud Cuckoo Land'. Aye, t'was a wondrous place; visitors often got lost or, ran out of patience trying to find a 'public convenience' but, despite the grumbling they persisted until it became the 'go-to' place for those who understood it's mystery and could work out where to catch the train to a guaranteed entree to the society, where they prospered, through fire, drought, rain, hail, snow or fire. Of course, once things were 'up and running' and the coin was rolling in - they decided that monuments must be built; big ones - and they liked, very well, the look of the pyramids. Enter the workforce, highly skilled and very unionised. All was well until the day they went on strike. 

"What - no straw?" they cried - "how can we make bricks without straw" they howled - "send for our union representative". Well boys and girls, Missus McDolittle was the union rep; patiently she listened to the argument that without straw, no bricks could be made. After a long drawn out search - no straw could be found; of course they neglected to look in the basement of the Caliph, were the reserves were held. In the end they voted on a resolution to send Missus McDolittle out into the wilderness to find their straw,

For forty days and forty nights McDolittle wandered in the desert; searching, seeking and stubbing her toes on rocks - fed up and thirsty, using her walking stick. she 'cracked the rocks asunder' and out came gallons of Ale. Having slaked a monumental thirst and being well over .05 she toddled off toward the distant Mt Non Compliance; for there was a what seemed to be a flicker of fire light up there and, it was a chilly night. Slowly and just a little unsteady she toiled up the steep slope toward the mountain's peak; and, just as the moon was rising, she reached the light to find a burning bush - WTD she muttered - (for twas bushfire season). Being public spirited, she decided to purge some of the Ale consumed - extinguish the flames and find a modicum of relief.

"What are you doing" boomed a great voice; "who are you to be piddling on my burning bush here in the wilderness of Mount non compliance? Well children; you can imagine the scene; bloomers around the knees, half toasted, confronted by a burning bush and a booming voice from within.

"Sorry; so sorry" whimpers McDolittle; "I seek the answers to our straw problem, we need it to build the monuments to the great ones, I meant no harm." "Hrrumph" said the burning bush; "I shall consider your request". And for forty days and forty nights the representative of her union sat quietly, soberly and mute before the burning bush; grateful for the blaze, as nights atop Mt Noncompliance can get chilly. At last the bush spoke.

"The straw you need is kept beneath the great palace; ask and it shall be given."

"Oh, thank you" - breathed McDolittle.

"However" - boomed the bush - "in times to come your descendants will be in need of stronger stuff than straw, for they will be called upon to help great machines which fly through the air on silvered wings; a great multitude." "They will be in need of your dynasty's protection."

The bush gave a mighty cough and spat out two stone tablets - beautifully carved. "There are my laws for their protection; ten off, preserve them for your antecedents, for they will, in times of dire strife, need them to defeat the great darkness." - "Go now, avoid the Ale which springs from rocks."

And so, Missus McDolittle picked her way down Mt Noncompliance, clutching two heavy stone tablets with strange symbols engraved thereon. Well; they found the straw, made their bricks and built; as decreed a 'pleasure dome' without further need for wanderings in the desert. Missus McDolittle dutifully passed on the stone relics to her line until the symbols on the tablets matched the language of the day's generation.

The new keeper of the stones gasped when she read the inscriptions - they all used the word "shall" - not should, not if, not and, not but, not maybe - but 'Shall". Well, there was great consternation about this - but, the Macquarie dictionary would brook no argument; nor could the legal eagles find a way to disavow those words cast in stone, those many years ago, atop Mt Noncompliance.

Thou shalt, within 40 days realign with ICAO convention and be compliant - or else.

Thou shalt,within 90 days return to regulation by reference of either the FAR or NZ CAR. Or else.

Thou shalt, forthwith remove the levy on aviation fuel. Or else.

Thou shalt within 40 days provide all those who fly for pleasure with a 'self declared' medical pathway. Or else.

Thou shalt, within 90 days remove strict liability from the new regulations, unless it is applied under the 'rule of law' in compliance with the criminal justice system. Or else.

Thou shalt; immediately and forthwith cease and desist all acts of gross embuggerance. Or else.

Aye well; the kids nodded off and have since departed the fix. My seat by the stove is comfortable, the fire warm, the evening sky agreeable, the stable quiet in the lamp light. Tiring work, this story telling, perhaps a smoke and stroll before I too succumb to the  idle dreams all tall tales produce. Aye goodnight sweet prince - indeed.

Toot (yawn) toot.....

[Peetwo]

AOPA/AMROBA submission No. ?? 

Not yet on the RRAT inquiry webpage but the following was published yesterday via FB...

Ref: https://auntypru.com/wp-content/uploads/...ations.pdf

---

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) of Australia, an affiliate of AOPA International,
invites interested parties to support a fresh approach towards flying training. Flying training is the
bedrock activity of General Aviation (GA) that can grow jobs and businesses.

Flying training stimulates job growth in a number of associated fields, such as aviation engineering,
aircraft maintenance, manufacturing and education.

Australia’s GA industry needs a fresh approach in order to provide the Nation with the aviation skills
and expertise to carry us forward in a post COVID era, AOPA Australia looks to one specific legislative
change as the initial requirement in order to achieve a new dynamic for Australia’s General Aviation
industry.

This change is to align the Commonwealth’s commitment to the Competition Principles Agreement
of the Council of Australian Governments (COAG). This will allow independent flight instructors to
conduct flying training in harmony with the International Civil Aviation Organisation, (ICAO)
standards, via it’s Annexes stated to which we are signatory.

This submission is based on the COAG’s Competition Principles Agreement that have not been
applied to aviation regulatory development since 2003. In fact, we assert that anti-competitive
aviation regulations have been created since 2003 that have restricted safe competitive growth of
small businesses by removing safe competitive regulations consistent to the Chicago Convention
Annexes as implemented by the USA’s Federal Aviation Regulations. NZ has adopted the FARs and
NZ small aviation and manufacturing are much healthier than Australia’s small civil aviation sectors.

AOPA Australia recommends

• Civil Aviation Safety Regulations should be reviewed and directed to comply with the
Governments’ Competition Principles Agreement.
• The Ministers direction to CASA must set a timetable to review and reform regulations to
enable civil aviation businesses plan a long-term future.
• The Civil Aviation Act should be amended to include the Competition Principles Agreement
section 5 so the same mistake does not happen in the future.

---

Next via AMROBA: https://auntypru.com/wp-content/uploads/...n-8-21.pdf

Tick Tock BJ and McDolittle...Tick Tock indeed??!! -   

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

Submissions 57 & 58; and AAAA supplementary submission.

Via the RRAT GA inquiry submission webpage: 

---

57 Australian Experimental Aircraft Association Chapter 1308 Inc (PDF 95 KB) 

Australian Experimental Aircraft Association Chapter 1308 Inc. (hereafter EAA) submission on CASA. EAA is based in the USA and is the largest sport/recreational aviation organisation in the world over 200,000 members around the world. Chapter 1308 is the only EAA Chapter in Australia at time of writing.

 
 
EAA is concerned about CASA Part 149
 
EAA agrees in principal that all sport/private aviators should be governed by the same rules as outlined in the SAAA submission.
 
Australian citizens should be treated as individuals by the law, not as members of a collective.
 
Part 149 is designed by CASA to push legitimate CASA functions in safety administration of sport and recreational aviation on to various private bodies which results in needless duplication, expense and poor safety outcomes. It also pushes legal liability on to some private citizens in their “supervision” of other private citizens activities and effectively makes these private organisations policemen, judges and juries where “members” are not afforded the normal legal protections of Australian citizens and where there is CASA compulsion to join these bodies.
 
At no stage has any improved safety or cost benefit been argued in respect of the members or their aviation operations been put forward as required by Government policy. The nearly 3 decades of bureaucratic inertia would seem to indicate that Part 149 is a facade implemented at great cost to the subject organisations for no demonstrable benefit.
 
There is a resultant artificial fracturing of the various sport/recreational activities which inhibits sensible political action on unneeded regulation and the interchange of safety related information as there is little cooperation or coordination between these bodies. It is all aviation and pilots all fly in the same airspace. Training and licensing standards of pilots and aircraft vary without good reasons.
 
CASA pushes these bodies to have their own “disciplinary” methods and procedures, aka “kangaroo courts” with none of the normal protections of protections of Australian Law. For example, right to silence, right to representation, lack of proper consideration of evidence etc.
 
On expense, it is costing the main sport aviation bodies, RAAus (Recreational Aviation Australia) , GFA (Gliding Federation of Australia) and hence their members, hundreds of thousands of dollars and considerable ongoing expense to obtain and maintain their Part 149 certification via “expositions” which require these bodies to convince CASA they can administer whatever nebulous standards there appear to be.
 
However CASA does maintain a Sport Aviation Section to oversee these organisations. When last heard of there were enough CASA employees to actually just directly administer RAAus and GFA pilots and aircraft.
 
Currently General aviation Private Pilots are directly responsible to CASA which sets licensing and maintenance standards for pilots and GA aircraft.
 
RAAus does this for very small single engine aircraft which weigh less than 600Kg and have a stalling speed of less than 45 knots and are flown by day in VFR (Visual Flight Rules) conditions and aerobatics are prohibited.
 
A “Pilot Certificate” is issued to trained (to RAAus standards) pilots. Flight in controlled airspace is not permitted unless the pilot also holds a Recreational Pilot Licence with controlled airspace endorsement or a Private Pilot License. Note however that possession of either of those DOES NOT permit flight of RAAus registered aircraft anywhere unless the person is a member of RAAus and holds an RAAus Pilot Certificate. Note, many of these aircraft could have either RAAus or GA registration. This is absurd.
 
Pilot medical standards are relaxed to being holder of a medically unrestricted State Driver’s Licence and owner maintenance of aircraft is permitted if the owner desires.


 
The GFA is similar in that medical standards are similarly relaxed and the organisation issues a “Glider Pilot Certificate” based on its, yet again different, standards. Glider Pilots may however fly in controlled airspace with a GFA endorsement.
The gliders are on the VH CASA register but registration is administered by the GFA. Gliders can weigh up to 850 Kg and may have engines.
There are three types of powered gliders:
So called “Traveling Motor Gliders” which have a fixed engine and look similar to normal GA or RAAus aircraft but with longer wings and a flight manual which permits the turning off of the engine in flight although this is only occasionally done in these types.
 
“Self Launching sailplanes” which generally have an engine that is retractable after it is shut down when a suitable altitude is reached and then the aircraft behaves as a normal motorless glider.
 
The third type is similar to the second but the engine is incapable of powering the aircraft through takeoff from the ground but is capable of maintaining flight to return the glider to its home or other airfield.
 
ICAO treaty Appendix 7 Table 1 defines motorised aircraft as aeroplanes but CASA has made an exception to this treaty in order to maintain the silo that is the GFA.
 
The result is that we have 3 different general aviation pilot and aircraft licensing systems.
 
We may have a small General Aviation aircraft flying cross country with a Private Pilot in command. An RAAus aircraft with an RAAus Pilot Certificate holder in command
A traveling motor glider being flown under power with a Glider Pilot Certificate holder in command .
 
Note that they all fly in the same airspace but the aircraft are registered and maintained to different standards and their pilots likewise.
 
All of this is greatly expensive as each Part 149 organisation writes its own voluminous airworthiness and operations manuals and administers them and there are absurd differences in requirements for no good reason.
 
Pilots wishing to fly General aviation, RAAus and gliders need to deal with three different organisations requirements and duplicated expense.
 
 
Recommendations:
 
Mostly follow the lead of the Federal Aviation Administration of the United States. The FAA maintains direct administration of all aspects of aviation except for Part 103 ultralights (under 254 lb empty weight) which are very restricted and not considered to be aircraft by the FAA. Australia should do this.
 
The equivalent of our RAAus aircraft is the LSA (Light Sport Aircraft) category with relaxed pilot medical requirements and less training required as operation is by day only (In the USA a Private Pilot License involves night flying training.) These aircraft and pilots are directly FAA administered as are glider pilots. Owners may maintain and certify the airworthiness after a 16 hour course (or equivalent experience)
Worthy of emulation as is
 
US glider pilots have a PPL (G) and must complete the same ground school as any powered aircraft pilot. The medical standard for glider pilots is relaxed to being a self declaration that there are no


medical reasons not to fly. This has worked well. The gliders themselves are maintained in FAA registered workshops and put on the US Civil Aircraft Register by the FAA.
 
Worthy of emulation but as most gliders are 600Kg or less gross weight, ALL those not used for training should have the LSA maintenance requirement.
 
 
Benefits:
 
Liability is removed from private bodies and individuals.
 
Expense is vastly reduced. The RAAus and GFA would continue to exist as advocacy, enthusiast and advice organisations without the vast overhead of being duplicate regulatory bodies and without the outrageous CASA requirement that pilots be members if they wish to indulge in these forms of aviation.
 
Note that a person is not required to join an automobile organisation to own or drive a car. CASA Workload/Expense
No Impact as CASA already staffs a Sport Aviation section with enough personnel to carry out the required functions.
 
Hazards Avoided:
 
Under Part 149 CASA can at anytime decide an organisation is not meeting what CASA desires and suspend its certification resulting in members being denied beneficial use of their property and training through no fault of their own, but some CASA perceived (real or not) failing of the organisation. This has already happened in two episodes – RAAus registration and the Jabiru engine misadventure by CASA.
 
Australian citizens should not be penalised by the failings of organisations they are compelled to join by a government body (an obnoxious requirement in itself).
 
There is also of course the possibility that, as private bodies, the GFA and RAAus may become bankrupt due to mismanagement or legal action which CASA has stated would result in their activities ceasing until another organisation takes over the functions. This would take a minimum of months to years.
Other issues Maintenance
In the early 2000’s Canada introduced Owner maintenance of certain simpler types of small aircraft.
The FAA audited this ten years later and found there was no increase in accident rate due to airworthiness issues and the fleet was in as good or better condition than those maintained by the traditional system.

EASA has recently introduced Part ML of their regulations which permits owner/pilot maintenance for privately operated aircraft up to 2730kg maximum takeoff weight including sailplanes, helicopters (up to 1200kg)

We note and welcome changes to maintenance of homebuilt (ie “experimental” category) and LSA aircraft proposed by CASA in their Part 43 consultation. It is hoped that there is no walkback on these reform proposals.
Medical standards
In the last few years both the USA and the United Kingdom introduced greatly relaxed private pilot medical standards.
 

Australia allegedly also had “medical reform” which was reform in name only. A sham.

 

This issue needs to be re-investigated for Australian Private General Aviation pilots.

I would welcome any opportunity to discuss this submission further with the committee or its individual members.
 
Mike Borgelt
 
President Australian EAA Chapter 1308 Inc

58 McDermott Aviation (PDF 746 KB) 

Update from McDermott Aviation

As a brief adjunct to our previous submission, we have recently (once again) had to fall back on a range of processes outside the CASA regulatory environment to complete a significant export of Australian capability.

The photos and link below shows 4 of our Australian owned and operated Bell 214B helicopters en-route to Greece to assist with firefighting during a particularly aggressive season in southern Europe. The urgency of the situation in Greece meant they needed
resources quickly and the decision was made to air freight 4 of our Bell 214B fire-fighting helicopters via Antonov freighter. The aircraft went to work in Greece within 7 days of the request being made. These aircraft joined 2 others already on the ground in Araxos and Samos.

The only way we can do this in a timely way and provide the flight crews and engineering support required for these type of operations is to use foreign regulations, training, qualifications and registration. Australian qualifications are difficult to obtain, largely not recognised by the overseas jurisdictions and require long lead times meaning we cannot either operate or maintain our aircraft without an alternative system in place (in our case administered by FAA).

This may not be seen as a high priority for CASA resources or as an Australian GA issue per se - BUT- this is not the first time we have been called to provide emergency and/or humanitarian assistance. The circumstances are always urgent and lead times are short.

Australia makes a significant contribution to disaster relief overseas off the back of our domestic disaster management capabilities - eg fire, flood, cyclone Tsunami etc. and greater use could be made of Australian capability if the regulatory environment and compatibility with other countries could be sorted out.

One other knock-on effect of this is that opportunities for increasing investment in Australian GA assets is limited by the size of the domestic market for aircraft capability. We are increasingly locked in to using large overseas foreign owned fighting aircraft for example because they can move seamlessly across the globe under foreign ownership and registration. Opportunities for offshore work could increase the scale and scope of the Australian based and owned fleet.

It makes no apparent sense to run a unique and specialised safety regulatory system for a global industry sector utilising exclusively foreign manufactured equipment.


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
We see some potential green shoots of reform in CASA in the 12 months since our previous submission including an expressed desire for culture change from the highest levels of CASA. Whether the act, the regs and the existing administrative structure(s) are flexible enough to allow these shoots to grow to support the industry remains to be seen.
Thanks for your time.
 
 
 
John McDermott Managing Director
 
The photos below show the loading of the first pair of helicopters into the Antonov aircraft at Wellcamp airport in Qld

And the following link to a video from Perth Airport facebook page shows the loading of the 2nd pair of aircraft and subsequent departure for Greece.

https://www.facebook.com/perthairport/videos/1443828409310102/

12 Aerial Application Association of Australia Ltd (PDF 870 KB) 
12.1 Supplementary to submission 12 (PDF 461 KB) 

Summary
There is considerable unity of purpose arising from the general aviation community regarding the need for urgent problem solving within the context of a national strategy for General Aviation.
 
There is almost universal agreement from industry not only on the problems, but also on the solutions with the best likelihood of success. Industry in the main is neither splintered nor at loggerheads.

Accusations of such are simply mischief making to avoid dealing with real issues of reform and improvement.
 
The shared message from industry is coherent and has been consistent for years:
 
·        Provide an overarching national strategy for GA
·        Reform CASA to be efficient and to regulate GA in a sensible manner
·        Genuinely engage with industry to assist with improving safety and the effectiveness of regulation
 
Considerable policy work with strong industry support and a very positive approach has been undertaken by the TAAAF (The Aviation Associations of Australia Forum – comprising many peak bodies), the GAAN (General Aviation Advisory Group - individuals appointed by the previous DPM and which will hopefully continue its excellent work), and a range of individual peak bodies, including AAAA.
 
In addition, there have been a number of inquiries into CASA over the decades – most have which keep finding the same problems – but the recommendations fail to be implemented within the spirit of the inquiry. The ASRR/’Forsyth’ review is a good example – very strong, widespread industry support of the recommendations, which were then largely watered down and not effectively implemented.
 
When the approach to GA is also ground-truthed against international regulators , we find the UK 'GA Roadmap', the FAA dedicated GA Directorate (admittedly aimed at GA manufacturing), and even the NZ CAA with their pioneering work using sector risk profiles to inform regulation of GA -  it becomes obvious that Australia, and particularly CASA, is out of step with best practice.
 
Having a GA-facing and informed division with CASA would certainly be an improvement (especially when complemented by other structures and methodology that has previously functioned well including sector risk profiles and sector units). However, this alone is not enough to address the c1ment GA problems.
 
While it is clear that redress and rectification of the problems identified should not wait for a national strategy to be settled - unless of course the Government is of a mind to endorse urgently the existing work by GAAN or to consider the UK 'GA Roadmap' as relevant to the Australian condition - a national GA Strategy will be important to providing accountability for CASA and other agencies and a timeline for improvement that is actually felt by GA.
 
As always, AAAA is ready to cooperate for the improvement of aerial application and the GA sector in Australia.

---

MTF...P2 

[Wombat]

There is a disconnect about expectations here that really concerns me. I will illustrate it with a story.

Many many years ago Lieutenant Wombat was an infantry Officer in the Citizen Military Forces - 2/6th Marsupials Battalion. I was running a recruit training course, the axis of such courses as many here would know, is to instill a military attitude to discipline in new recruits before they are let loose to play with firearms and high explosive. We do this in part by cynically toying with their expectations in an effort to instill some beneficial shared behaviours.

So one morning  the little wombat recruits arrive after breakfast at the parade ground at S block - it's July and S block is known around Australia as an especially wind swept and freezing location in the already sub arctic Puckapunyal complex. My platoon Sergeant calls them to order and I inspect the troops; "Sergeant Jones", I say to my platoon sergeant, "I see that recruit Smith is missing his anorak this morning, see to it"; "Yes Sir" He replied. He saluted.

I turned and waddled off to the mess to warm up my frozen paws. Behind me I heard the predictable Jones: "We all want to look the same don't we?"; "Yes Sergeant!". "Recruit Smith hasn't got his Anorak on has he?"; "No Sergeant"." "Right, then everybody else take your anoraks off right now"!

Such is the military mind. It is not beyond possibility that CASA will respond to whining about RAA by simply removing what privileges the RAA currently enjoys, that would be a good bureaucratic joke. No more self certification. No more owner maintenance. No more pilots certificates. Guess which approach is more attractive to CASA?

You expect to get the best of both worlds out of these entreaties. CASA is expert at solving problems by giving you the worst of the available options. Look no further than what was done to Angel Flight. Look at the new fuel rules. Consider the training fatalities associated with low level engine failure on takeoff practice. We seem to have masters whose joy is to take any bad situation and exult in making it worse.

[Peetwo]

Submissions 57 & 58; and AAAA supplementary submission.

Via the RRAT GA inquiry submission webpage: 

---

57 Australian Experimental Aircraft Association Chapter 1308 Inc (PDF 95 KB) 

Australian Experimental Aircraft Association Chapter 1308 Inc. (hereafter EAA) submission on CASA. EAA is based in the USA and is the largest sport/recreational aviation organisation in the world over 200,000 members around the world. Chapter 1308 is the only EAA Chapter in Australia at time of writing.

 
 
EAA is concerned about CASA Part 149
 
EAA agrees in principal that all sport/private aviators should be governed by the same rules as outlined in the SAAA submission.
 
Australian citizens should be treated as individuals by the law, not as members of a collective.
 
Part 149 is designed by CASA to push legitimate CASA functions in safety administration of sport and recreational aviation on to various private bodies which results in needless duplication, expense and poor safety outcomes. It also pushes legal liability on to some private citizens in their “supervision” of other private citizens activities and effectively makes these private organisations policemen, judges and juries where “members” are not afforded the normal legal protections of Australian citizens and where there is CASA compulsion to join these bodies.
 
At no stage has any improved safety or cost benefit been argued in respect of the members or their aviation operations been put forward as required by Government policy. The nearly 3 decades of bureaucratic inertia would seem to indicate that Part 149 is a facade implemented at great cost to the subject organisations for no demonstrable benefit.
 
There is a resultant artificial fracturing of the various sport/recreational activities which inhibits sensible political action on unneeded regulation and the interchange of safety related information as there is little cooperation or coordination between these bodies. It is all aviation and pilots all fly in the same airspace. Training and licensing standards of pilots and aircraft vary without good reasons.
 
CASA pushes these bodies to have their own “disciplinary” methods and procedures, aka “kangaroo courts” with none of the normal protections of protections of Australian Law. For example, right to silence, right to representation, lack of proper consideration of evidence etc.
 
On expense, it is costing the main sport aviation bodies, RAAus (Recreational Aviation Australia) , GFA (Gliding Federation of Australia) and hence their members, hundreds of thousands of dollars and considerable ongoing expense to obtain and maintain their Part 149 certification via “expositions” which require these bodies to convince CASA they can administer whatever nebulous standards there appear to be.
 
However CASA does maintain a Sport Aviation Section to oversee these organisations. When last heard of there were enough CASA employees to actually just directly administer RAAus and GFA pilots and aircraft.
 
Currently General aviation Private Pilots are directly responsible to CASA which sets licensing and maintenance standards for pilots and GA aircraft.
 
RAAus does this for very small single engine aircraft which weigh less than 600Kg and have a stalling speed of less than 45 knots and are flown by day in VFR (Visual Flight Rules) conditions and aerobatics are prohibited.
 
A “Pilot Certificate” is issued to trained (to RAAus standards) pilots. Flight in controlled airspace is not permitted unless the pilot also holds a Recreational Pilot Licence with controlled airspace endorsement or a Private Pilot License. Note however that possession of either of those DOES NOT permit flight of RAAus registered aircraft anywhere unless the person is a member of RAAus and holds an RAAus Pilot Certificate. Note, many of these aircraft could have either RAAus or GA registration. This is absurd.
 
Pilot medical standards are relaxed to being holder of a medically unrestricted State Driver’s Licence and owner maintenance of aircraft is permitted if the owner desires.


 
The GFA is similar in that medical standards are similarly relaxed and the organisation issues a “Glider Pilot Certificate” based on its, yet again different, standards. Glider Pilots may however fly in controlled airspace with a GFA endorsement.
The gliders are on the VH CASA register but registration is administered by the GFA. Gliders can weigh up to 850 Kg and may have engines.
There are three types of powered gliders:
So called “Traveling Motor Gliders” which have a fixed engine and look similar to normal GA or RAAus aircraft but with longer wings and a flight manual which permits the turning off of the engine in flight although this is only occasionally done in these types.
 
“Self Launching sailplanes” which generally have an engine that is retractable after it is shut down when a suitable altitude is reached and then the aircraft behaves as a normal motorless glider.
 
The third type is similar to the second but the engine is incapable of powering the aircraft through takeoff from the ground but is capable of maintaining flight to return the glider to its home or other airfield.
 
ICAO treaty Appendix 7 Table 1 defines motorised aircraft as aeroplanes but CASA has made an exception to this treaty in order to maintain the silo that is the GFA.
 
The result is that we have 3 different general aviation pilot and aircraft licensing systems.
 
We may have a small General Aviation aircraft flying cross country with a Private Pilot in command. An RAAus aircraft with an RAAus Pilot Certificate holder in command
A traveling motor glider being flown under power with a Glider Pilot Certificate holder in command .
 
Note that they all fly in the same airspace but the aircraft are registered and maintained to different standards and their pilots likewise.
 
All of this is greatly expensive as each Part 149 organisation writes its own voluminous airworthiness and operations manuals and administers them and there are absurd differences in requirements for no good reason.
 
Pilots wishing to fly General aviation, RAAus and gliders need to deal with three different organisations requirements and duplicated expense.
 
 
Recommendations:
 
Mostly follow the lead of the Federal Aviation Administration of the United States. The FAA maintains direct administration of all aspects of aviation except for Part 103 ultralights (under 254 lb empty weight) which are very restricted and not considered to be aircraft by the FAA. Australia should do this.
 
The equivalent of our RAAus aircraft is the LSA (Light Sport Aircraft) category with relaxed pilot medical requirements and less training required as operation is by day only (In the USA a Private Pilot License involves night flying training.) These aircraft and pilots are directly FAA administered as are glider pilots. Owners may maintain and certify the airworthiness after a 16 hour course (or equivalent experience)
Worthy of emulation as is
 
US glider pilots have a PPL (G) and must complete the same ground school as any powered aircraft pilot. The medical standard for glider pilots is relaxed to being a self declaration that there are no


medical reasons not to fly. This has worked well. The gliders themselves are maintained in FAA registered workshops and put on the US Civil Aircraft Register by the FAA.
 
Worthy of emulation but as most gliders are 600Kg or less gross weight, ALL those not used for training should have the LSA maintenance requirement.
 
 
Benefits:
 
Liability is removed from private bodies and individuals.
 
Expense is vastly reduced. The RAAus and GFA would continue to exist as advocacy, enthusiast and advice organisations without the vast overhead of being duplicate regulatory bodies and without the outrageous CASA requirement that pilots be members if they wish to indulge in these forms of aviation.
 
Note that a person is not required to join an automobile organisation to own or drive a car. CASA Workload/Expense
No Impact as CASA already staffs a Sport Aviation section with enough personnel to carry out the required functions.
 
Hazards Avoided:
 
Under Part 149 CASA can at anytime decide an organisation is not meeting what CASA desires and suspend its certification resulting in members being denied beneficial use of their property and training through no fault of their own, but some CASA perceived (real or not) failing of the organisation. This has already happened in two episodes – RAAus registration and the Jabiru engine misadventure by CASA.
 
Australian citizens should not be penalised by the failings of organisations they are compelled to join by a government body (an obnoxious requirement in itself).
 
There is also of course the possibility that, as private bodies, the GFA and RAAus may become bankrupt due to mismanagement or legal action which CASA has stated would result in their activities ceasing until another organisation takes over the functions. This would take a minimum of months to years.
Other issues Maintenance
In the early 2000’s Canada introduced Owner maintenance of certain simpler types of small aircraft.
The FAA audited this ten years later and found there was no increase in accident rate due to airworthiness issues and the fleet was in as good or better condition than those maintained by the traditional system.

EASA has recently introduced Part ML of their regulations which permits owner/pilot maintenance for privately operated aircraft up to 2730kg maximum takeoff weight including sailplanes, helicopters (up to 1200kg)

We note and welcome changes to maintenance of homebuilt (ie “experimental” category) and LSA aircraft proposed by CASA in their Part 43 consultation. It is hoped that there is no walkback on these reform proposals.
Medical standards
In the last few years both the USA and the United Kingdom introduced greatly relaxed private pilot medical standards.
 

Australia allegedly also had “medical reform” which was reform in name only. A sham.

 

This issue needs to be re-investigated for Australian Private General Aviation pilots.

I would welcome any opportunity to discuss this submission further with the committee or its individual members.
 
Mike Borgelt
 
President Australian EAA Chapter 1308 Inc

58 McDermott Aviation (PDF 746 KB) 

Update from McDermott Aviation

As a brief adjunct to our previous submission, we have recently (once again) had to fall back on a range of processes outside the CASA regulatory environment to complete a significant export of Australian capability.

The photos and link below shows 4 of our Australian owned and operated Bell 214B helicopters en-route to Greece to assist with firefighting during a particularly aggressive season in southern Europe. The urgency of the situation in Greece meant they needed resources quickly and the decision was made to air freight 4 of our Bell 214B fire-fighting helicopters via Antonov freighter. The aircraft went to work in Greece within 7 days of the request being made. These aircraft joined 2 others already on the ground in Araxos and Samos.

The only way we can do this in a timely way and provide the flight crews and engineering support required for these type of operations is to use foreign regulations, training, qualifications and registration. Australian qualifications are difficult to obtain, largely not recognised by the overseas jurisdictions and require long lead times meaning we cannot either operate or maintain our aircraft without an alternative system in place (in our case administered by FAA).

This may not be seen as a high priority for CASA resources or as an Australian GA issue per se - BUT- this is not the first time we have been called to provide emergency and/or humanitarian assistance. The circumstances are always urgent and lead times are short.

Australia makes a significant contribution to disaster relief overseas off the back of our domestic disaster management capabilities - eg fire, flood, cyclone Tsunami etc. and greater use could be made of Australian capability if the regulatory environment and compatibility with other countries could be sorted out.

One other knock-on effect of this is that opportunities for increasing investment in Australian GA assets is limited by the size of the domestic market for aircraft capability. We are increasingly locked in to using large overseas foreign owned fighting aircraft for example because they can move seamlessly across the globe under foreign ownership and registration. Opportunities for offshore work could increase the scale and scope of the Australian based and owned fleet.

It makes no apparent sense to run a unique and specialised safety regulatory system for a global industry sector utilising exclusively foreign manufactured equipment. 
 
 We see some potential green shoots of reform in CASA in the 12 months since our previous submission including an expressed desire for culture change from the highest levels of CASA. Whether the act, the regs and the existing administrative structure(s) are flexible enough to allow these shoots to grow to support the industry remains to be seen.

Thanks for your time.
 
 John McDermott Managing Director
 
The photos below show the loading of the first pair of helicopters into the Antonov aircraft at Wellcamp airport in Qld 


And the following link to a video from Perth Airport facebook page shows the loading of the 2nd pair of aircraft and subsequent departure for Greece.

https://www.facebook.com/perthairport/vi...409310102/

And unloading in Greece –

12 Aerial Application Association of Australia Ltd (PDF 870 KB) 
12.1 Supplementary to submission 12 (PDF 461 KB) 

Summary
There is considerable unity of purpose arising from the general aviation community regarding the need for urgent problem solving within the context of a national strategy for General Aviation.
 
There is almost universal agreement from industry not only on the problems, but also on the solutions with the best likelihood of success. Industry in the main is neither splintered nor at loggerheads.

Accusations of such are simply mischief making to avoid dealing with real issues of reform and improvement.
 
The shared message from industry is coherent and has been consistent for years:
 
·        Provide an overarching national strategy for GA
·        Reform CASA to be efficient and to regulate GA in a sensible manner
·        Genuinely engage with industry to assist with improving safety and the effectiveness of regulation
 
Considerable policy work with strong industry support and a very positive approach has been undertaken by the TAAAF (The Aviation Associations of Australia Forum – comprising many peak bodies), the GAAN (General Aviation Advisory Group - individuals appointed by the previous DPM and which will hopefully continue its excellent work), and a range of individual peak bodies, including AAAA.
 
In addition, there have been a number of inquiries into CASA over the decades – most have which keep finding the same problems – but the recommendations fail to be implemented within the spirit of the inquiry. The ASRR/’Forsyth’ review is a good example – very strong, widespread industry support of the recommendations, which were then largely watered down and not effectively implemented.
 
When the approach to GA is also ground-truthed against international regulators , we find the UK 'GA Roadmap', the FAA dedicated GA Directorate (admittedly aimed at GA manufacturing), and even the NZ CAA with their pioneering work using sector risk profiles to inform regulation of GA -  it becomes obvious that Australia, and particularly CASA, is out of step with best practice.
 
Having a GA-facing and informed division with CASA would certainly be an improvement (especially when complemented by other structures and methodology that has previously functioned well including sector risk profiles and sector units). However, this alone is not enough to address the c1ment GA problems.
 
While it is clear that redress and rectification of the problems identified should not wait for a national strategy to be settled - unless of course the Government is of a mind to endorse urgently the existing work by GAAN or to consider the UK 'GA Roadmap' as relevant to the Australian condition - a national GA Strategy will be important to providing accountability for CASA and other agencies and a timeline for improvement that is actually felt by GA.
 
As always, AAAA is ready to cooperate for the improvement of aerial application and the GA sector in Australia.

Upcoming Public Hearing, program yet to be published: 07 Sep 2021 ACT PDF: Hearing 3 (7/09/2021)

MTF...P2 

[Kharon]

Chapter 1308.

Of a seriously scary story is provided to the 20/20 inquiry by the Australian Experimental Aircraft Association. The submission, stand alone, is worthy of the most serious attention the Senate committee can muster.

Written in clear, concise easily understood terms; the submission also brings into focus, in a nutshell, one of the most basic unilateral concerns the industry, from top to grass roots shares.


"Part 149 is designed by CASA to push legitimate CASA functions in safety administration of sport and recreational aviation on to various private bodies which results in needless duplication, expense and poor safety outcomes."

Applicable across the entire aviation spectrum; few if any, would disagree with the general summation of the CASA failure to perform design function and deliberate shifting of all liability for the failure of the regulatory system.

"It also pushes legal liability on to some private citizens in their “supervision” of other private citizens activities and effectively makes these private organisations policemen, judges and juries where “members” are not afforded the normal legal protections of Australian citizens and where there is CASA compulsion to join these bodies."

Again, and again, we see the 'normal' protections of the 'accused' eradicated through 'variable compliance' as decided by CASA and the erosion of constitutional rights through 'strict liability'.

"CASA pushes these bodies to have their own “disciplinary” methods and procedures, aka “kangaroo courts” with none of the normal protections of protections of Australian Law. For example, right to silence, right to representation, lack of proper consideration of evidence etc."

As 'law makers' and publicly elected representatives of the Australian people; surely the Senate committee can grasp the the simple 'wrongness' in the above paragraph.


"All of this is greatly expensive as each Part 149 organisation writes its own voluminous airworthiness and operations manuals and administers them and there are absurd differences in requirements for no good reason."

The greatest con game exposed in the paragraph above; CASA demand more money, more staff, more power and some fairly hefty salary packages whist loading not only the cost and the work on the aviation industry, but the legal responsibility for all of the above.

It is a national disgrace - but; nice work if you can get it. And, get it you can, courtesy of a blind, bipartinsane government which is quite happy to spend millions on inquiry to ensure the status quo of CASA is never changed. Disgusting misuse of the democracy Australia fought for and cherishes.

Toot - toot....

[Sandy Reith]

Mike Borgelt President Australian EAA Chapter 1308 Inc. has submitted an extremely clear expose’ of the irrational and inefficient workings of our Australian aviation regulatory environment.

This situation has steadily strangled what was an industry employing thousands and serving a variety of purposes that only General Aviation (GA) can provide.

EAA Chapter 1308 has enunciated the reforms that are necessary if GA is to be revived with all the potential advantages that are waiting for the enabling reforms. Growth would see flying training spread once again all over Australia, creating employment and flying hours. The latter creates markets for airports, maintenance, aircraft sales and ground schools. Internationally recognised standards leads to manufacturing and many ancillary businesses.

We’ve arrived at this point because there’s been no political input into the regulatory process, unless Parliament’s rubber stamp counts.

The ill advised concept, initiated thirty three years ago, of a government function by an independent Commonwealth sponsored corporation, the monopoly provider of many unnecessary permissions, for which are required swinging fees, has failed with untold consequences, none of them good for Australia.

The only recognised and workable method of governance with accountability back to the electorate is via a Minister and Department. Until we find a better solution then the responsibility should reside with a Minister.

It is a traditional method that does work, not perfectly but can work to great advantage for Australia.

If reforms are made, how the future administration is structured will be critical to success.

[thorn bird]

It all seems so illogical to me Sandy. Is CASA saying flying in the USA is dangerous?

If so then why are warnings not issued to travellers through DFAT?

CASA maintains that their "Rules" are required to protect the Australian public, their only consideration.

If that is so, surely a warning should be issued. "DO NOT get on an airplane anywhere Australian rules do not apply your life is in extreme danger."

All international carriers should also not be permitted into Australian airspace other than those operating under Australian regulations I mean for goodness sake Australian lives at risk, only CASA regulation will make them safe.

Oh and of course, all these foreign certified aircraft should be immediately grounded, only Australian certified aircraft should be allowed, in the interest of Safety.

[Peetwo]

NT virtual public hearing.

Via the Yaffa:

Senate Hearing to focus on NT
1 September 2021

A hearing of the senate inquiry into the general aviation industry scheduled for 7 September will focus on submissions from people and operators from the Northern Territory.

Hearings next week were originally planned for Alice Springs and Darwin, but COVID restrictions mean one session will now be conducted via video link to Canberra and streamed online.

The Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport (RRAT) has not yet released the hearing program, but sources tell Australian Flying that several operators in the NT are set to give evidence.

The inquiry last held a hearing in January 2021, and progress has been hampered by COVID restrictions and a low number of submissions. At the time of writing, only 56 had been received.

The hearing will be streamed live on the Parliament of Australia website.

---

Plus via this week's EWH:

 ..The senate inquiry into the GA industry is ready to get going again this Tuesday, with a hearing scheduled for NT operators via video link. The last hearing was in January and it turned out to be quite explosive; there were pointed accusations of malfeasance and doubts expressed about the veracity of some of CASA's evidence. I don't expect this one to be quite as rambuncitous, but I also don't think NT operators will be holding back their feelings. COVID has really compromised the ability of the senate committee get this done right, which was evidenced by the interim report fielded last year, which stated simply that there was nothing to report. With four months to run until the final report is due, the committee is going to have to hit their straps to make it on time. But they could certainly use some help from the GA community. Senator Susan McDonald's plea for more submissions drew only two more, which dilutes the committee's ability to state the conclusions represent the views of the wider GA community. Governments and regulators are always looking for apathy in order to justify inaction. The good news is that the most important submissions–those from the leading associations–are on the table, even if they're aren't in agreement.

Will put up the NT hearing program once available but in the meantime I note that Sterlo's aviation inquiry will be running alongside the McDolittle effort, beginning on Monday - see HERE.

---

---

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

NT Public Hearing.

Via the RRAT webpages: https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Bus...c_Hearings

Date            Location Program Submissions
07 Sep 2021    NT                  

To watch and/or hear go HERE

Also from the GA inquiry Gold Star sup submission from Edge Aviation - supplementary submission 47.1

---

---

---

---

---

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

Today's NT GA inquiry Public Hearing in pictures.

Via Youtube:

---

---

MTF...P2 
 

[Sandy Reith]

Its sad, what a waste of time. This Senate Committee should halt proceedings immediately and forget about wasting time talking to CASA.

This Committee should be making a report to Government and Minister Joyce that includes some immediate reforms, like the helicopter chief pilot proficiency checking which Senator McDonald has known about from the first hearings, at least twelve months ago. I remember distinctly how she said that they should get onto CASA and get this fixed, was that eighteen months ago? That is there for anyone to see on video of the Committee’s hearings. What we’ve heard today shows that Senator McDonald did not follow through and therefore allowed a wrong system to persist to the detriment of everyone connected to the helicopter GA industry. She has positioned herself as champion of the North, but where’s the action ?

Very disappointing to see what is happening here, there’s no point whatever in asking questions of CASA. Same old playbook, yes this looks like a problem and yes Senator we will provide you with the reasons why we have the most thorough and careful rules and get back to you (when we can).
No doubt if we look back to the 2014 Forsyth report (which concluded I think in about one year), and the some thirty five Government accepted recommendations, you will find more of the same.

Today lots of tut tuting, sympathy and “we’ll take that onboard” but no action because we have to ask CASA for their opinion, but why? The facts are outstanding, they cry out for reforms, there must be changes now.

And so two years nearly past and Australia’s General Aviation industry is going further down the drain. Talk about fiddle while Rome burns, Forsyth was 2014 and quite obviously this Committee doesn’t have any of it’s recommendations in front of it. If it did it could have cut to the chase and demanded that the Minister make the agreed reforms that the Government forgot to implement from 2014.

Demanding change would take rare courage and invite party organisational and possibly career problems for a Senator or Senators but would be in Australia’s best interest.

[Wombat]

Sandy, I wonder if we are overthinking the issue of regulations and regulator?

The regulations are now so convoluted, imprecise and contradictory that they form a regulatory briar patch that is too thick to hack through. The evidence for this can be found in any number of places that I will not even begin to catalogue.

It also appears that this state allows great latitude to CASA (but not to industry) on how these regulations are interpreted and applied. This exacerbates power imbalances and introduces temptations.

Furthermore, the state of regulation provides an endless make work revenue stream to CASA, there is nothing for them to gain by simplifying things.

The costs involved in over regulation, both direct industry costs and opportunity costs, are hidden from the general public.

More importantly, with the exception of angel flight, RFDS and fire bombing, there is very little electoral support for or understanding of general aviation. The egalitarian nature of Australian society makes it very easy to portray participants as rich stuck up creeps who deserve no sympathy if not actual punishment.

So to me, it is not surprising that the Senate will pull its punches, produce a mealy mouthed short report designed to be quickly forgotten and then concentrate their efforts on the more important personal task of re-election next year.

My expectations of reform are zero. The trigger for public interest in reform will be a major air accident with heavy loss of life. The reforms that will come out of such a tragedy will then be even more extreme and costly regulation, not the new broom so desperately needed.

If there is a trigger for meaningful reform, I don’t know what it is.

[Sandy Reith]

Might there be a trigger for reform? What form that might take if it happens at all, one outstanding politician could make the difference. Yes highly unlikely but you have to hope or give up.

We’ve been looking hopefully at tea leaves, horoscopes and trawling through Hansard, Ministerial statements, body language and trying to peer through the thick walls of Aviation Hearse/House for years and years. Then along comes another inquiry.

Major accident? Possibly a trigger, but whatever trigger or shape reform takes (when, if) it will be up to the Parliament because CASA will never interrupt or ruin the continuation of the salary factory.

I would advise the whole industry to say to Senator McDonald we will not submit any more material or take part in any further discussions unless and until you achieve some real and exemplary reforms. She can start with a rational and agreed chief pilot proficiency checking system.

Surely someone can get stuck into the Senators and demand action, would that help? Nobody knows, but at least they can’t turn around and plead ignorance.

We’ve been far too polite and now its time for tell them they are responsible and there’s no respect until they move.

[Wombat]

There IS one way to get parliaments attention. That is for AOPA to run mail out campaigns against sitting government members in every marginal federal seat in Australia - or prepare to do so unless there is progress towards a set of agreed objectives. That is what AOPA does in the USA. I am assuming it’s legal of course.

Labor has 8 seats under 2% and the libs and independents have 3. I wonder what hope CASA would have against an electorally worried government? Not much would be my guess.

I wonder how a Ben Morgan editorial flyer in those mailboxes might affect things? “don’t vote for A, vote for B if your kids want an aviation career, etc.

AOPA could start its own fighting fund like AOPA in the USA.

On a philosophical note, which is difficult for a marsupial burrowing creature, there is some symmetry in adopting american political techniques since the USA is the source of almost all western aviation technology and learning.

[Peetwo]

Hansard etc.

Via the APH Hansard team...

See HERE or  Download PDF  

Plus EWH focusses on AAAA Phil Hurst's hearing evidence presented:

 

Change the CASA Culture Now: AAAA
8 September 2021

Australian Aerial Application Assocation (AAAA) CEO Phil Hurst has called for cultural and structural change at CASA, pointed to earlier inquiry recommendations as evidence of the need..

Hurst made the comments yesterday whilst giving evidence to Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport (RRAT) References Committee inquiry into general aviation, which was held via video link.

"We think we've got to reform CASA to make it efficient and regulation general aviation in sensible manner," he said, "and that includes a major independent and cultural review of CASA, a major structural change within CASA to create a general aviation division, and a create an indepdendent industry-based taskforce to rewrite the rulesets that are terribly impacting on GA at the moment.

"It's not just our industry [aerial application] that's struggling with this, the general aviation industry in the United Kingdom has gone down the same path; they've just produced a general aviation roadmap, and interesting in that the issues that have been canvassed and the recommendations are very similar to that which the GAAN [General Aviation Advisory Network] has already done."

Inquiry chair Senator Susan McDonald said she was not convinced review of CASA's culture was the right thing at the moment given that Director of Aviation Safety Pip Spence and CASA Chairman Mark Binskin had only just started in their new roles.

"We have a new DAS and we have a new Chairman of the Board at CASA," she said. "They're a couple of months into the job and I am reluctant to recommend a cultural review of CASA in the same way that Airservices has just gone through or that the aviation regulator in New Zealand has just gone through, because I think the new CEO should be given the opportunity to get out a big broom and sweep away the old cultural approaches and attitudes.

"I think all of the industry is watching carefully to see that that happens."

However, Hurst said he felt CASA needed major reforms, citing several past inquiries that had recommended cultural change at the regulator.

"The new DAS put out a newsletter talking about minimalistic change being required in CASA," he pointed, "and I think it needs to be challenged head-on. CASA is beyond minimalistic change. There have been consistent inquiries and reviews of CASA for decades and the recommendations have been very consistent.

"They go to the heart of reforming CASA and largely have not been implemented."

Hurst went on to state that the UK Civil Aviation Authority had undergone reform to create a general aviation champion within their structure, and that a similar thing in Australia would help the cultural issue in CASA if it focused on simple rules for simple operations.

McDonald said she felt that CASA under the new DAS and Chairman should be given the chance to show they are interested in prioritising the success of the industry over "just claiming safety" on everything.

The RRAT inquiry is scheduled to hold several more public hearings between now and December when the final report is due to be tabled.

   
Next Sandy in reply to the PH proposed ' CASA cultural review' (which by the way I totally agree with as long as it involves a big bloody hose and broom to sweep out the recalcitrant dross still inhabiting Aviation Hearse -   ): 

Cultural change? Excuse me but what the hell does that mean? 

At least there’s a sense that some major change is required now and that patience is running thin. 

Most disappointing that there’s no recognition of the underlying problem which is that there’s been no real political input and CASA has done nothing except look after itself. It will not change by asking it to change it’s ’culture’ which will mean whatever suits to different people. 

The deleterious trajectory our failing GA industry can only be fully corrected by having the whole administration directly under a Minister and kept within a traditional Department. 

The independent corporate regulator is a failed experiment that goes against the Westminster system and representative government. 

Sandy

  

Finally I also want to draw attention (again) to the excellent submission from Edge Aviation's Lorraine MacGillivray with this quote: 

Review HERE & via this week's SBG: https://auntypru.com/sbg-5-09-21-when-yo...oof-beats/

I totally agree with Sandy that this needs political input but I believe at this point, in the political cycle, that input can only come from the Minister via a re-written (with industry input) SOE to redirect Ms Spence to administer real reform (including big hoses and brooms - PICK ME..PICK ME!  ), otherwise industry may as well neck itself while we wait for Wombat's big bang theory to inevitably reoccur (think Lockhart, Monarch and Seaview)...  .

Of course this needs to happen NOW..NOW not 6-12 months down the track, the industry will be dead, buried and cremated by then -  



TICK..TOCK  Senator McDolittle if you don't want be named and shamed as the RRAT Chair that oversaw the last rites of the GA industry, grab the Brahman bull by the hump and get BJ to rewrite the SOE ASAP FDS -     

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

RAAA - 19.1 Supplementary to submission 19

Picked up that the RRAT committee recently published the CEO of the RAAA supplementary submission (personal opinion piece) to the McDolittle WOFTAM inquiry...  

See here - 19.1 Supplementary to submission 19 (PDF 2366 KB) 

Extract:

...On top of this, aircraft operating costs are only going higher as they age and fuel costs go even higher, renewing aircraft is not cheap and we have seen the lifespan of GA aircraft extending beyond 40+ years. Later on we talk about CASA, but whilst ongoing costs from regulations are a small percent age of total costs of running a GA business, regulatory changes have incurred significant costs to the industry which were not fully understood by CASA and we have another big change coming soon .

I believe too much focus has been placed on CASA by GA for the cause of their woes, I believe it is time for GA to look inward for some real self-reflect ion . Some GA businesses are built from  a passion or hobby, once upon a time this worked out ok, but with privatisation of airports, maintenance and fuel costs going up, our GA businesses needed to adapt. Rather than harking back to the 'good ol days' GA needs to be looking 5-10 years ahead, what will flying training look like, how will drones affect GA, how will technology change GA, should GA be looking to regional bases??

There are IMO some reasonable points and recommendations made. However I find it passing strange that this submission, written on behalf of some fairly high profile operators and airlines (eg Rex, Alliance), would appear to be the sole considered opinion of the new CEO of the RAAA Steven Campbell??

I also believe there is a weighted perception of a 'conflict of interest' that questions the independence and veracity of this individual to give unbiased, credible opinion to the RRAT committee??

Ref: https://www.linkedin.com/in/steven-campb...bdomain=au

Airservices Australia
Government Relations Manager
Company Name Airservices Australia Full-time
Dates Employed Feb 2020 – Jan 2021
Employment Duration 1 yr
Location Canberra, Australia

Deputy Prime Minister's Office
Senior Advisor - Aviation
Company Name Deputy Prime Minister's Office
Dates Employed May 2018 – Feb 2020
Employment Duration 1 yr 10 mos
Location Canberra, Australia
Civil Aviation Safety Authority

Senior Aviation Adviser-Office of the CEO
Company Name Civil Aviation Safety Authority
Dates Employed Oct 2017 – May 2018
Employment Duration 8 mos
Location Canberra, Australia

Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Cities and Regional Development
Company Name Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Cities and Regional Development
Total Duration 1 yr 8 mos
Title Special Aviation Adviser
Dates Employed Jul 2017 – Oct 2017
Employment Duration 4 mos
Location Canberra, Australia

Western Sydney Airport Division-Airspace and flight path design
Title Senior Advisor-Aviation
Dates Employed Mar 2016 – Jul 2017
Employment Duration 1 yr 5 mos
Location Canberra, Australia

Civil Aviation Safety Authority
Company Name Civil Aviation Safety Authority
Total Duration 2 yrs 8 mos
Title Manager, Part 61 taskforce, Part 141/142
Dates Employed Oct 2015 – Mar 2016
Employment Duration6 mos
Location Canberra, Australia

Manager of CASR Part 141/142 review team.
Title Standards Officer (Large aeroplanes)
Dates Employed Aug 2013 – Oct 2015
Employment Duration 2 yrs 3 mos
Providing policy guidance and regulation development for the CASR operations suite of regulations.

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

AMROBA supplementary submission (plus attachments) finally published?? -   

Not exactly sure what the hold up was but I note that AMROBA's sup submission has been published:

Attachment 1 (PDF 215 KB)
 
The Hon Barnaby Joyce 08/07/2021

Deputy Prime Minister
Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications

Subject: Civil aviation engineering global recognition and harmonisation

Mr Joyce,

On behalf of the Board and members of AMROBA we congratulate your long overdue
return to DPM and the Minister for DITRDC and your support for the civil aviation
industry that you showed during your Ministership last time.

It will be a welcome change.

AMROBA also welcomed the appointment of Ms Pip Spence as CEO of CASA and
Mark Binskin as Chair of the CASA Board. The Board, to be respected by industry,
must be transparent like the Board of the CAA(UK) who, post their meetings, publish
the minutes for all to see their decisions and directions they give to the CAA(UK). This
transparency had been agreed to by Warren Truss. Never eventuated.

Under this new leadership we expect a return to global recognition and respect of
Australian civil aviation businesses capabilities to compete domestically and globally
in their own right and a safe prosperous civil aviation industry.

The view of general aviation sectors, including the engineering fields of design,
manufacture and maintenance, is that political leadership and direction has not been
provided by the previous two Ministers, Mr McCormack and Mr Chester.

In particular, Mr Chester signed airport master plans that has enabled the ‘property
developers’ managing airports to evict many solid aviation small businesses, some have
been in business for over 30 years, and replaced them with non-aviation businesses.

This practice is continuing today, especially at Moorabbin, Bankstown, Archerfield,
Jandakot and other airports. These ‘developers’ are not advancing aviation and they are
reducing the ability for future aviation development at these airports in preference to
non-aviation commercial businesses and increasing rents. No aviation support.

Mr McCormack took no action to reverse or restrict Chester’s approved airport master
plans even though there has been numerous submissions and pleas, sent to him, to
prevent the reduction at these mainly metro airports. DITRDC are aware and agree that

Acts need to be changed to fix the issue. There should be a ‘hold’ on this non-aviation
development until a review and Act amendment. General aviation is made up of many
small businesses that are expendable according to these developers.

The Wagga meeting of over 30 associations and around 100 industry delegates 100%
voted, with McCormack in attendance, to adopt and harmonise with the USA aviation
regulatory system (FARs). So why is CASA adopting EASA regulations that industry
does not want? The FARs are more applicable to our aviation industry sectors.

We need to adopt FARs to be at least Australasia harmonised.

Global Recognition 

Since our meeting in Tamworth, that you attended, and the subsequent meeting in
Wagga, that McCormack attended, we have recently become aware of a massive
number of Differences lodged by CASA/government to the Convention on
International Aviation Standards, signed by Australia in 1947. These differences
explains why other foreign countries and their National Aviation Authority do not
recognise Australian civil aviation products and services.

Differences: https://www.airservicesaustralia.com/aip.../icao/icao standards.asp

Any foreign NAA, when assessing Australia’s compliance with the Convention and its
Standards, would assess the differences lodged by Australia against each Annex
standard to determine if Australia is a Convention compliant country. Not anymore.

Convention Annexes differences reveals to the world we are third world compliant.

• Article 37 of the Convention places an obligation on Australia to adopt the
“standards” specified in Annexes to the Convention by “securing the highest
practicable degree of uniformity in regulations, standards, procedures, and
organization in relation to aircraft, personnel, airways and auxiliary services in all
matters in which such uniformity will facilitate and improve air navigation”.
• One recent difference lodged states that Australia does not manufacture or certify
aircraft above 5700Kg. This explains why potential Australian manufacturers of
larger aircraft have not been able to meet with CASA over the last decade.
• The less differences lodged by CASA means Australian civil aviation design,
manufacture and maintenance products and services can be accepted by other
nations once a bilateral (FTA) is signed with each country.

Because the Act only states that CASA must be “consistent” with the Convention, it
needs to be clarified with a direction that regulations and standards be “consistent” with
minimal differences to the Convention “standards” until the Act can be changed.

Your Minister’s ‘Statement of Expectations’ to CASA’s Board must provide such a
direction to adopt, in accordance with Article 37, the Convention’s standards with
minimal differences in order to support global recognition of our products, services and
global participation by our civil aviation businesses.

To obtain global recognition Australia needs to complete harmonisation with the FAR
system utilising their performance based regulations that will resurrect small businesses
especially in the flight training and maintenance sectors that underpin private and
commercial general aviation sectors as well as the design, manufacture and
maintenance sectors.

The US FAA already has a difference agreement with EASA for recognition of each
other’s system that Australia can copy once it adopts the FARs.

Performance Based Regulations,

PBRs are cost effective and safe. It is the basis of FARs and the US has an aviation
safety record second to none. We need to adopt.

The current regulatory development is creating a silo system of economic regulations
instead of multiple pathways as former 1990s LNP and Labour Ministers expected and
supported. For example, these Ministers required “parallel pathways” wherever
administration organisations are involved.

e.g.1990s NPRM 0603OS _ Part 103 will also establish a 'parallel pathway' for CASA
to administer these activities when individual participants, for whatever reason, choose
not to participate as members of an administering organisation.

Freedom of choice. Did not eventuate – lower red tape for Part 103 operations.

The performance based regulations like the USA Federal Aviation Regulations provide
multiple pathways, economic decisions are then made by industry participants because
of the multi-pathways available. Australia is implementing, has implemented,
economic sector protective regulations with one pathway that is restricting the viability
of small businesses to participate in civil aviation.

History needing correction

Both Australia and New Zealand were developing congruous regulations based on the
FAR system in the 1990s until CASA CEO Byron, early 2000, changed the course of
CASA without support or consultation from the whole civil aviation industry.

So began the era of ‘you get what we give you and not what you want’ attitude in
CASA and this is why the views of industry (FAR supporters) and CASA (EASR
supporters) are so diametrically opposed.

This needs to be politically corrected.

NZ, PNG and many Pacific Island States have a FAR based system adopted from the
CAA(NZ) FAR based system.

Regional harmonisation

We need a Pacific region harmonised regulatory system with harmonised personnel
qualifications to meet the Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition Agreement.

As part of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation, Government should resurrect
Single Aviation Market (SAM) discussions to include the engineering fields of design,
manufacture and maintenance.

By promoting a SAM, harmonised regulatory systems become a necessity.

This may be the only way the culture in CASA may change.

Political direction required.

CASA Engineering staff qualifications

Aviation professional engineers and maintenance engineers employed by CASA
need to hold certification and manufacturing qualifications that are not available in
Australia. ICAO also provides courses for managers regarding ICAO SARPs.

Lastly, we need your government to direct that aviation maintenance requirements
provide confidence for our businesses to employ apprentices by removing anticompetitive
regulations currently in place or being proposed.

Past Coalition governments have required the same standards to apply to pilots,
maintenance personnel and aircraft no matter with whom the aircraft was registered
with. CASA or private entity authorised as a Self-Administration Organisation (SAO).

The Canadians have a much better system than the Australia’s SAO system.

Last year, the Convention Annex 8 removed the 750Kg lower limit for aircraft below
5700Kg. From 2021 all new aircraft below 5700Kg now have to be certificated under
CASR Part 23, FAR Part 23 or EASA CS 23.

Below 750Kg non-certificated aircraft applied to aircraft that are operated under a
Self-Administration Organisation.

CASA has demonstrated that they do not understand their obligations under the
Convention to maintain type certificated aircraft to the same standard required by the
State of Design. This affects Australian creditability with other compliant nations.

For interest.

Both Europe (LAME) and Canada (pilots) have managed to set personnel training
safety standards for recreational and private aviation. They are world’s best safety
practice that government should adopt in the interest of safety.

One of the original major reason for regulatory reform was to remove economic
regulatory requirements benefitting one sector over another.

Minister, though the above appears to be insurmountable, the Board of AMROBA
believes that the new CEO must be given enormous political support to change the
culture of CASA, as has been recommended by past reviews (ASSR).

In addition, the structure of CASA needs to follow the ICAO client based model used
by most other foreign countries and previously used by CASA.

No legislative requirement requires CASA to focus on the certification of products,
continuing airworthiness, air transport operations, general aviation operations,
aerodromes & airspace and personnel licencing.

This has been a long term problem with the Civil Aviation Act.

AMROBA has had some encouraging meetings with the new regime within DITRDC
over the last 6 months that have been promising and future looking.

They need your support to speed up the identified changes.

We would like to meet and discuss these matters at your convenience.

---

Attachment 2 (PDF 450 KB)  Attachment 3 (PDF 177 KB)  Attachment 4 (PDF 389 KB)  Attachment 5 (PDF 199 KB) 

10.1 Supplementary to submission 10 (PDF 655 KB) 

Plus related email correspondence from KC to AMROBA members, it would appear that AMROBA (supported by the Minister's Dept Office) have well and truly kicked a GA industry own goal...

The following is a reply from the DPM’s office regarding recognition of CASA issued STCs recognition by the FAA and other NAAs. At last the department is talking with DFAT to include aviation in FTA.
 
There is recognition by the Department of the issues.
The DPM’s office will continue to follow-up on further action of the Department
 
Regards

KC

AMROBA’s main concern (as raised in the attached) relates to the international recognition of standards in aviation engineering. A number of stakeholders from Australia’s general aviation (GA) sector, including the Aviation Maintenance Repair Overhaul Business Association (AMROBA) and members of the General Aviation Advisory Network (GAAN) have raised concerns that Australia’s current lack of mutual recognition arrangements for aviation engineering products and services place Australian civil aviation manufacturers and engineers at a competitive disadvantage when compared to their foreign counterparts.


While CASA already has a range of ad hoc agreements in place with foreign safety regulators, the Department agrees that it would be in the interests of Australian industry to have more comprehensive agreements concluded.

CASA is often able to work with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in the United States to arrange recognition of Australian aircraft componentry, however, this does not take place within the framework of a comprehensive agreement.

Currently, CASA’s legislation stipulates ‘automatic acceptance’ of aircraft componentry from particularly international trading partners/countries i.e. US, EU, UK. However, this is not reciprocated. Consequently, these countries do not have an incentive to enter into international agreements with Australia as they do not stand to gain from any such agreement. This creates a difficult negotiating position for Australia.

The Department has evaluated a range of options aimed at improving international recognition of aircraft componentry manufactured in Australia.

Broad agreements concluding automatic mutual recognition of Australian civil aviation products and services of the kind that AMROBA and other general aviation stakeholders have advocated for would constitute treaty level agreements, and fall outside the remit of CASA to conclude. Such negotiations would require engagement at a government level between Australia and counterparts abroad.

Agreements on mutual recognition such as those pursued by AMROBA may be progressed in the context of trade negotiations, and in this instance, there may be some prospect of mutual recognition with the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) within the context of the ongoing Australia-EU Free Trade Agreement (FTA) negotiations.  Given this interest, we will look to engage with DFAT on the possibility of including mutual recognition provisions as part of the negotiations. Noting that the scope to introduce such provisions will largely depend on how well progressed the FTA negotiations are already.

   

Finally (again related) I had the following on-forwarded (thanks Sandy, Stan and posthumously Phearless Phelan) Jeff Boyd speech to the 2012 RAAA convention...

Jeff Boyd
 
By kind courtesy of Aviation Trader‘s Tony Shaw and of Jeff Boyd, we’re re-publishing Jeff’s recent Commentary on the regulatory scene, first published in Aviation Trader‘s September issue, for the benefit of those who haven’t yet seen it.

In my 33 years of working in the regional aviation industry I have seen the whole gamut of industry ups and downs.

I came into this industry at the end of the 1980’s boom. I worked through the recession that we had to have. I have seen the Aussie dollar get down to less than half of a US dollar and then rise to above parity, interest rates jump to crippling levels and now sink to record lows, and who would have ever believed we would be paying well over $2 a litre for aviation fuel. We have worked our way through industry skill shortages and along the way provided the major airlines free training for thousands of pilots and engineers.
 
Jeff Boyd addressing RAAA’s 2012 conference

We have paid for barbed wire fences around country airports, hardened cockpit doors for aircraft so small that they would bounce off the side of a building, and checked bag screening in places a terrorist would be hard pressed to find in an atlas.

We have enjoyed the work a healthy mining industry has bought us and we have worked hard to keep services to regional towns that don’t have the economic benefit of the mining industry.

But with all its highs and lows, overall for those who have worked hard and worked smart, the regional aviation industry has been a great business to be in.

For me it has taught me and taken me to places that as a young fellow growing up in the Western suburbs of Sydney I could have never imagined. It has provided economic security for myself and my family along with the hundreds of people who have come and gone from our employment over the years.

However probably the biggest threat now facing the future of the regional aviation industry is one that should not be a threat at all. It is one that is not controlled by the vagaries of the European economy or the threat of international terrorism. It is in fact a process that should and  could provide great opportunities for our industry, – that is the regulatory reform of the Australian Civil Aviation Regulations.

This process has been going on for almost as long as I have worked in the industry. It has gone on for decades and cost millions of dollars. Some people have literally made a career out of drafting and redrafting the same regulation over and over again. It has gone through several incarnations under several different names of the industry regulator and even more Directors of the regulator. It had an American accent for a while before taking on a more European brogue. Now it would seem to be trying to develop an accent all of its own. This is an area where I believe one the biggest threats lies.

All along we have been told that our Australian regulations had to be rewritten because we needed to harmonise with the rest of the world and become ICAO compliant. I don’t believe that has happened as what I am seeing are Australian-specific rules and regulations being drafted. The new part 66 engineer’s licence for example is absolutely an Australian specific licence. Originally we were told, in fact I even saw it in CASA print, that we were going to get an EASA licence. What we actually ended up with is what CASA describe as an EASA style licence. Most engineers I speak to have found it completely confusing and it is not recognised anywhere else in the world.

CASA has just finished implementing the Part 145 and Part 42 maintenance regulations for RPT operations. This has been a massive task for many of our members, – just as massive I am sure for the people in CASA working to bring these regulations on line. These regulations were brought in on a time line that was too short and very difficult to meet. In fact most 145 and 42 approvals were only issued in the last couple of weeks and days before the cut off date. The pressure this line in the sand placed on many of our members was ridiculous. I believe the level of stress that was placed on both industry and CASA staff could have resulted in serious safety implications. It certainly caused a level of stress on individuals that I would consider harmful.

Now that we have these new maintenance regulations we have actually and unnecessarily divided our small Australian aircraft maintenance industry in two. This has had huge repercussions in the Regional Aviation industry where RPT and non RPT operations generally work side by side. We now have the situation where someone with a CAR30 approval cannot work or provide overhauled or repaired parts to a 145 organisation, however someone in another country automatically approved by CASA that does not necessarily have all of the processes and systems in place as required for an Australian Part 145 approval can do so. I feared when these regulations were proposed that some organisations would see the 145 process as too daunting and would walk away from the RPT industry. This has actually happened with many organisations deciding not to go 145 or worse, just closing down their services all together. I have spoken to several Australian RPT organisations who are now sourcing overhauled or repaired components from overseas instead of the Australian workshop they previously used.

There is also much ambiguity in these regulations with as many interpretations as there are CASA field offices. I believe this can be attributed to a lack of real guidance material for both CASA and industry. This guidance material should have preceded the rolling out of the regulations instead of CASA now playing catch up.

I look and see what it has cost and taken our industry to implement the Part 66 licences, Part 145 and Part 42 and I wonder how much more it will cost and take to actually get these three parts to an amended mature set of regulations. I then contemplate what a small section of the overall regulatory reform process these regulations are. How much more time and money will it take to finish writing and then implement the massive suite of flying ops and non-RPT maintenance regulations and what toll will that have on our industry? How many decades of amendments will it take to iron out all of these new rules and achieve a mature set of regulations? Then at the end of the day we will be sitting in the middle of the Pacific with a brand new set of Australian specific regulations.

From where I am writing this on the Eastern side of Australia I am actually closer in distance to New Zealand than I am to Perth. So I wonder why we are not doing as almost every other country in the Pacific, and some in South East Asia have done, and adopt the New Zealand regulations. Here are a set of rewritten ICAO compliant regulations, written for and by a country with aviation operations basically the same as us. I would doubt that there would be an area of operation that would not match ours. There is also the huge upside that their “new” regulations were implemented over a decade ago and have now reached a mature state.

For the critics who will say that I am over simplifying things, or that it would not be constitutionally possible to take up my suggestion, I remind them of a set of aviation regulations called EASA designed and implemented by a large and diverse group of countries all operating within the same geographical region.

Imagine the real benefits to our local aviation industry of having our entire region operating on the same set of regulations. Perhaps I am missing something, and if so I look forward to someone smarter than me telling me what that is, but in the meantime, whoever our next Federal Government Minister may be, I implore them to consider and research my Pacific Solution.

Jeff Boyd is current Chairman of The Regional Aviation Association of Australia, and also Managing Director of Kite Aviation. The RAAA is a not-for-profit organisation formed in 1980 to protect, represent and promote the combined interests of its regional airline members and regional aviation throughout Australia. The RAAA has 29 Ordinary Members (AOC holders) and 72 Associate/Affiliate Members. The RAAA’s AOC members directly employ over 2,500 Australians, many in regional areas and on an annual basis jointly turnover more than $1b. Its members also carry well in excess of 2 million passengers and move over 23 million kilograms of freight each year. More information including categories of membership can be found at www.raaa.com.au.

   

I know, I know it is just words but remembering that speech was nearly a decade ago and nearly 2 years before the release of the Forsyth report, one has to ask what of the many issues highlighted by JB have actually been resolved since for the betterment of industry??   

MTF...P2