[Peetwo]

Submission 59 - Moorabbin Airport Chamber of Commerce

Excellent submission from the MACCI which IMO clearly articulates the serious issues of survival these secondary Metro-D airports face with the relentless encroachment by cashed up development sharks looking to slice and dice cheap prime urban land with non-aviation development like DFOs and warehousing...

The Moorabbin Airport Chamber of Commerce Incorporated (MACCI) membership representation is
broad and includes business from aviation maintenance, aircraft charter, pilot training, aircraft
components, retail business aviation and non-aviation, aircraft owners, pilots, and users of the
airport.

Moorabbin Airport Corporation (MAC) owned by Goodman Property Group hold the head lease from
the commonwealth since 23rd of June 1999. Many of the members of the Chamber were operating
on Moorabbin Airport prior to this date under the management of the Federal Airport’s Corporation.
The Airport’s Act came into effect in 1996 when the Commonwealth granted 99 year leases to the
airports it owned.

The objects of this Act are as follows:

(a) to promote the sound development of civil aviation in Australia;
(b) to establish a system for the regulation of airports that has due regard to the interests of airport
users and the general community;
© to promote the efficient and economic development and operation of airports;
(d) to facilitate the comparison of airport performance in a transparent manner;
(e) to ensure majority Australian ownership of airports;
(f) to limit the ownership of certain airports by airlines;
(g) to ensure diversity of ownership and control of certain major airports;
(h) to implement international obligations relating to airports.

When the airport lease was transferred to the MAC the existing aviation tenants some of whom are
members of the Chamber were under the impression that there would be some protection for their
businesses under the Airports Act, however it appears this is not the case.

The Airports Act since inception requires the Airport Operator Company to submit a preliminary
draft master plan to the government every 5 years (from 2021 it will be 8 years) for ministerial
approval. The current 2021 preliminary draft master plan is in its consultation process at this time
with submissions initially due by the 12th of July 2021 and now extended to 28th October 2021 due
Covid.

In 2020 there was 5 aviation businesses during the Victorian Covid lockdown that were given a 6
months’ notice eviction letter. Currently most airport aviation tenants have a 6-month
redevelopment clause on their leases. If Covid wasn’t bad enough, these businesses had to vacate
their buildings and try and find suitable tenancy on the airport in a very short time frame. The
business involved were not newcomers to the airport some had more than 35 years in operation at
Moorabbin Airport. The reason for their evictions was to clear the way for the Airport Operating
Company to build 3 exceptionally large commercial warehouses. These enormous structures were
apparently in keeping with the 2015 master plan which had been signed off by Minister Darren
Chester.

How is it that none of these businesses or other airport tenants were aware of this development
until the eviction notices arrived? There were fewer than 10 submissions to the preliminary draft
master plan process in 2015, none from those businesses involved. If appropriate consultation had
taken place, or had tenants and operators been provided with a straight-forward, clearly intelligible
draft master plan for the future, rather than what was presented: a complex, difficult to understand,
obfuscating 2015 draft Master Plan: 310 pages of professional complexity beyond the
comprehension of most, then perhaps the assumption may be made that those businesses involved
would have been at the least notified and have a basic understanding of what could take place in the
next 5 years of the master plan. We assert that in the circumstances, they did not.

The Airports Act does provide for consultation on the preliminary draft master plan, and it also
requires —detailed information on the proposed developments in the master plan that are to be
used for: (i) commercial, community, office, or retail purposes; or (ii) for any other purpose that is
not related to airport services. That clearly didn’t happen, and the airport has not been open with
its aviation tenants.

In the submissions to the Future of Aviation Reference Paper, the Australian Airports Association
along with Bankstown and Moorabbin Airports want the government to renew their leases early.
They have called for federally- leased airports to exercise the option to extend their leases and
provide greater certainty for master planning and development on airport land. This certainty is not
being provided to aviation tenants at Moorabbin airport who are given 6-month redevelopment
clauses in their leases.

Over the past 18 months Moorabbin airport has seen aviation businesses displaced, some have also
vacated the airport completely and a large parcel of land used for aviation removed and replaced
with giant commercial warehousing. If the aim of the approved 2015 master plan was to make the
airport more efficient, why do we now have aircraft taxiing up to a dead end on the western apron
and reduced parking for aircraft across the airport site?

In 2019 Moorabbin airport was responsible for 27 % of all the Commercial pilots produced in
Australian along with 67% being produced at commonwealth leased Metro D airports. The value of
these airports to aviation for training pilots, and the economic benefit to the country is being
overlooked for the dollar value of the land the airport site occupies.

Over the past 15 years Moorabbin airport has seen commercial developments surround its
perimeter, some of which create additional wind turbulence for aircraft taking off and landing. All of
which the aviation community has had to suffer. Promoted as the number one training airport the
surrounding development has degraded the student training experience rendering training
operations grounded on certain days due to wind shear from the additional buildings.

General aviation could almost be considered a cottage industry, lots of small businesses run by
people with passion and enthusiasm to deliver strong outcomes for the industry. The one thing that
unites them is their place of business, which by design is an airport. Airports are vital pieces of
infrastructure and governments would be served well by forward thinking and protecting their
assets from overdevelopment.

2021 sees new and emerging technologies in the aviation space and reservation of land such as
airports should be at the forefront of government policy. You wouldn’t put a warehouse in the
How is it that none of these businesses or other airport tenants were aware of this development
until the eviction notices arrived? There were fewer than 10 submissions to the preliminary draft
master plan process in 2015, none from those businesses involved. If appropriate consultation had
taken place, or had tenants and operators been provided with a straight-forward, clearly intelligible
draft master plan for the future, rather than what was presented: a complex, difficult to understand,
obfuscating 2015 draft Master Plan: 310 pages of professional complexity beyond the
comprehension of most, then perhaps the assumption may be made that those businesses involved
would have been at the least notified and have a basic understanding of what could take place in the
next 5 years of the master plan. We assert that in the circumstances, they did not.

The Airports Act does provide for consultation on the preliminary draft master plan, and it also
requires —detailed information on the proposed developments in the master plan that are to be
used for: (i) commercial, community, office, or retail purposes; or (ii) for any other purpose that is
not related to airport services. That clearly didn’t happen, and the airport has not been open with
its aviation tenants.

In the submissions to the Future of Aviation Reference Paper, the Australian Airports Association
along with Bankstown and Moorabbin Airports want the government to renew their leases early.
They have called for federally- leased airports to exercise the option to extend their leases and
provide greater certainty for master planning and development on airport land. This certainty is not
being provided to aviation tenants at Moorabbin airport who are given 6-month redevelopment
clauses in their leases.

Over the past 18 months Moorabbin airport has seen aviation businesses displaced, some have also
vacated the airport completely and a large parcel of land used for aviation removed and replaced
with giant commercial warehousing. If the aim of the approved 2015 master plan was to make the
airport more efficient, why do we now have aircraft taxiing up to a dead end on the western apron
and reduced parking for aircraft across the airport site?

In 2019 Moorabbin airport was responsible for 27 % of all the Commercial pilots produced in
Australian along with 67% being produced at commonwealth leased Metro D airports. The value of
these airports to aviation for training pilots, and the economic benefit to the country is being
overlooked for the dollar value of the land the airport site occupies.

Over the past 15 years Moorabbin airport has seen commercial developments surround its
perimeter, some of which create additional wind turbulence for aircraft taking off and landing. All of
which the aviation community has had to suffer. Promoted as the number one training airport the
surrounding development has degraded the student training experience rendering training
operations grounded on certain days due to wind shear from the additional buildings.

General aviation could almost be considered a cottage industry, lots of small businesses run by
people with passion and enthusiasm to deliver strong outcomes for the industry. The one thing that
unites them is their place of business, which by design is an airport. Airports are vital pieces of
infrastructure and governments would be served well by forward thinking and protecting their
assets from overdevelopment.

2021 sees new and emerging technologies in the aviation space and reservation of land such as
airports should be at the forefront of government policy. You wouldn’t put a warehouse in the

MTF...P2 

[Sandy Reith]

With the Government’s concern about Australia’s security there should be a rethink about alienating Commonwealth airport land away from aviation uses. General Aviation and it’s airports have high value security implications, quite apart from the economic benefits of a healthy aviation industry.

[thorn bird]

It's rather disappointing Sandy that the lessons of history get ignored when the capricious pursuit of easy money short term trumps the long term benefits of keeping things the way they were.

Secondary Airports were not a drain on the public purse when they were run by the FAC. In fact they produced a modest profit to the treasury each year. Of course that was when we had a GA industry, before puerile purblind over-regulation brought it to its knees. The old political furphy "the user must pay" gets manipulated when suits to advance the interest away from the users to those who will profit. General aviation did "pay its way", its problem was it just didn't pay enough to head off those that saw massive easy money from the land allegedly reserved for its use.

There are huge tracts of very valuable land reserved for public use that cost the taxpayers vast amounts of money to maintain. National Parks for example. Do they return a "Profit?", does "the user pays" principle apply to them?
At the end of the day it all comes down to Politics and the manipulation of our political elite that governs how that principle is applied. Imagine the political heat if a McBank lobbied the politicians to begin biting large chunks out of our national parks for "Development".

In the case of Bankstown Airport, it was reserved as an airport site back in the 1920ies. It wasn't till 1942 when Australia suddenly found itself threatened with not enough airports that it suddenly became an essential part of the defence of Sydney.

We have been living in a fools paradise for a very long time never imagining that good old lay back Australia would ever be threatened. After 1942 we embarked on a frantic airport building program to counter the existential threat we faced at the time, never looking however, at the future. We hurriedly built airports to suit the aircraft of the time, little more than gravel strips or just large paddocks, which essentially was all Bankstown airport was. In America the army corp of engineers built their airports with the future in mind, substantial, solid structures capable of supporting the largest, heaviest of their military vehicles.

We see that same lack of vision in the development of our largest cities. Instead of encouraging development in our regional centres by building transport infrastructure to allow them to develop, diversifying our population from being centralised in every growing main capitals. An easy target for those that would do us harm, propelling housing costs the ever unaffordable heights and degrading the living space we all covet.

In the Bankstown area alone this is ever more apparent. Perfectly sound houses demolished to make way for dog box poorly constructed duplexes, streets chocked with parked cars to the extent that just finding a clear spot to put your garbage out for collection is becoming increasingly impossible. I fear this ever contracting level of living space will one day come back to haunt us.

In the modern era of warfare a single bomb can take out almost a quarter of our population and a good percentage of our ability to produce. Wars are won by the ability to produce. Protecting that is not advanced by concentrating it all in one place.

[Peetwo]

Submission 60 & 61.

Via RRAT 20/20 submissions: 

---

60 Regional Airspace and Procedures Advisory Committee (RAPAC) (PDF 130 KB)

South Australian RAPAC statement to enquiry

Committee Secretariat
Senate Standing Committees on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport

Email:rrat.sen@aph.gov.au

Dear Sir / Madam:

RE: Senate inquiry into the current state of Australia’s General Aviation industry.

Please accept the South Australian General Aviation industry submission to this Senate Inquiry. We
have canvassed a range of opinions from General Aviation operators across South Australia to
prepare this submission, and trust that the issues raised will be addressed. The experience
represented here is broad, and includes operators at all levels of General Aviation. We note that
General Aviation operators offer charter services, scenic flights, search and rescue operations,
passenger and freight transport, mustering services, photography and survey services. All these
services are ad hoc services, and operate according to bookings. We note that for the purposes of
this submission, General Aviation does not include Regular Public Transport services with published
and fixed routes.

Recommendation 1: That the Federal Government provide the aviation industry with their vision and policy platform for the future.

Recommendation 2: That the Federal Government complete and publish the Future of Aviation paper as soon as possible.

Recommendation 3: That the Federal Government act on all recommendations as stated in the Aviation Safety Regulation Review, as presented to the Federal Government on 3 June 2014 by Warren Truss, the then Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development.

Recommendation 4: That all locations capable of providing a TAF be returned to providing a TAF around the clock.

Training:

CASR Part 61 governed the introduction of the flight crew licencing regulations to Australia’s aviation
industry, and was introduced on 1 September, 2014. Prior to the introduction of Part 61, the then
Director of Aviation Safety re-assured the industry that “what you can do today, you can do
tomorrow”. Regrettably, this was not the result, and a level of bitterness remains.

Part 61 introduced a number of new flights tests to check pilots’ skills for things that used to be
handled under a flight review, or similar. Since Part 61 has been introduced, only flight examiners
can conduct flight tests. Accessing the individual or organisation with the required qualifications to
examine these skills is proving a costly exercise for the regional and remote operator. Either crew
and aircraft need to be re-located to the location suitable for the examiner. We note that a the
majority of aircraft used in General Aviation are not available at the average training school, hence
the relocation of both crew and aircraft.

Alternatively, the examiner – with all associated costs – must be re-located to the business location.
Unfortunately, some of the items to be checked (3D approaches, or certain classes of airspace)
cannot be re-located, which is why relocating aircraft and crew remains the preferred, albeit more
costly, option.

The added complexity of training regulations has seen a number of flight schools close, or drastically
alter their business model to remain viable. It would be hoped that this exercise would be seen as a
warning for future regulatory amendment, but it appears not to be the case.

Recommendation 5: That General Aviation operators be separated from RPT operators and be
permitted to operate under a fatigue management system as described in CAO 48.1 (published 8
December 2004).

Recommendation 6: That CASA release the finalised Part 135 / Part 138 regulations, in plain English.

Recommendation 7: That CASA ensure that pilot maintenance, as described in Schedule 8,
Paragraph 42ZC (4) (d) in the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988, be retained.

Recommendation 9: That the Government make available as soon as possible a grant scheme for
affected GA businesses (including maintenance organisations) similar to the scope of the Exceptional
Circumstances scheme eligible to agricultural businesses affected by drought.

Recommendation 10: That the Government re-instate Jobkeeper for affected GA businesses who
can prove a decline of 30 per cent or more on 2018 / 19 financial year.

Recommendation 11: That the Government make available a loan scheme of up to $2 million at
minimal interest targeted at aircraft refurbishment / replacement.

61 Outback Helicopter Airwork NT Pty Ltd (PDF 685 KB)

CYLINDER & VALVE WEAR – BAD FUEL

Like other operators from the northern regions around 2016 we started to notice changes in the fuel
supplied by our normal fuel suppliers, mainly a different smell, different colour and different
consistency/feel. Spark plugs were running hotter and wearing out significantly quicker. At times we would only get 100 hours out of a plug instead of approx. 500 – 600 hours. Cylinder and oil temperatures began to run hotter to a point where we started having regular issues with valve wear in the cylinders.

In 2018 we purchased a completely brand-new Robinson R44 Raven I helicopter at a cost of over
$600,000.00 with the expectation of having a full life out of the engine with minimal major maintenance and downtime. However, our first major maintenance was carried out at an astounding 178.2 hours Total Time where three (3) cylinders failed at once. So out of a 2000-hour life item (the engine) where you would typically not need to replace a cylinder (pre low lead 100LL fuel), we only managed 178.2 hours before the cylinders broke down, which equates to only 8.64% of the full life of the component.

These valve wear issues continued at an unprecedented level creating major concerns for the safety of our pilots and aircraft. Concern was consistent throughout industry as many operators especially in the northern regions were experiencing the same problems and frustrated with CASA’s response and lack of action regarding the matter. To help find a cause for why cylinders were suddenly consistently breaking down we took part in the AHIA funded investigation into the durability issues in Lycoming 0-320, 0-360 and 0-540 Engines fitted to Robinson Helicopter R22 & R44 models dated 21/10/2019.

Our normal fuel suppliers whom we purchase fuel in bulk were now suppling low lead fuel 100LL as a
replacement for the older type of leaded fuel 100/130 with no notification of the change. As we felt the
valve damage was caused by excessively high operating temperatures because of using the low lead fuel, we searched for suppliers who could provide leaded fuel so we could stop the problem. At the time there was only one provider who could supply the leaded fuel but only in 44-gallon drums not in bulk amounts.

This mean the cost was much higher in drum form, but we were willing incur the higher charges if it would fix the problem.

We found that by using the 100/130 leaded fuel seemed to lower the oil and cylinder temps and resulted in a reduced number of cylinders required to be repaired or replaced. 100/300 leaded fuel is now available in bulk form however many of our clientele who provide their own bulk fuel opt for the cheaper low lead version which still creates a problem for us. We try to utilize the 100/130 fuel as much as we can, but we cannot dictate what our clients provide.

The current price for 100LL low lead fuel is $2.26 per litre and the 100/130 leaded fuel is $2.55 per litre. A difference of $0.29 per litre. When purchased in bulk amounts a difference of $0.29 adds up. See example below. e.g., 14,000 litre bulk tank @ $0.29 per litre = $4,060.00

Since mid-2017 we have replaced an incredible 49 cylinders on our three (3) R22 and two (2) R44 helicopters some of which only managed less than 100 hours. That is less than 5% of the full life of the cylinder (at 2000hours). Some of these cylinders have been under warranty however a warranty claim does not cover the full cost of the cylinder or the engineering time it takes to remove and re-install. The cost for this unscheduled maintenance, loss of income due to downtime, freight costs, repair costs and admin costs has been an astronomical burden on the business, myself as the owner and my staff.

PART 61 LICENCE CHANGES – additional check and training requirements

Under PART 61 Aerial Application operations which include agricultural spraying and firefighting require an annual proficiency check which is over and above Bi-annual Flight Review pre PART61.

This annual check is also required to be carried out by an approved flight examiner and there being no flight examiners in Darwin with the required credentials, we must source someone from interstate which also includes additional costs for flights, accommodation, travel time, car hire etc.

We recently completed our Application Rating training and Bi-annual flight review in July 2021 with an
independent flight examiner from interstate at a cost more than $5,500.00. Compared to other operators in other states who can provide this service for their pilots at approx. $400.00 per person.

To rub salt into the wound CASA brought out an extension of time for Flight Reviews and checks in August
due to COVID19. CASA EX100/21 – CASA EX92/21 – Extension of COVID-19 Relief Measures – Amendment
Instrument 2021.

Recommendation

CASA to provide an exemption to the CASR regs to allow a Chief Pilot from a third-party operator be able to conduct Aerial Application and Airwork Operations Proficiency Check & Training in replacement of a flight examiner who can then check & train in house personnel. This would alleviate the need to engage
examiners from interstate and reduce the cost burden on the business.

PART 138

CASA is pushing for the New Part 138 Operators Certificates into the Aviation sector by 02.12.21. to replace the current AOC Airwork Operations. They say it’s going to be easier, simpler and user friendly than the old Air Operator Certificate system. CASA have created another document which will add to the confusion and minefield of regulation and added cost to businesses. There are so many elements to it, pilots will be overloaded by paperwork, it’s just another case of been miro managed from CASA.

 Mustering Operations Certificate has 62 pages
 MOS Manual of Standards (Aerial Work Operations) has 102 pages

WORKER’S COMPENSATION INSURANCE

Northern Territory Worker’s Compensation Insurance is one of our major costs. Since 2009 when the
company started, we have paid over 20.0% workers comp for all staff regardless if they are a pilot, general labourer or office staff. That rate increased to 26.5% over the previous 5 years. Despite seeking quotes from alternative providers this is the best rate we have been able to get despite having had no accidents, no incidents, and no claims. The table below shows alternative quotation rates sourced, 2019.

K Addendum: (sent via carrier pigeon) "K" is apparently out of range of the NBN ( ), so I am posting this on his behalf...

If's and Buts.

"If only" - (fill in the rest) - is a lament oft heard, usually related to some awful result which could (perhaps) have been avoided. Then there is the remarkable, ever present  'but'. Combined, they open up a world of situations which are in the 'past' - almost always retrospective; the tragedy is it is no easy matter to revisit or reset time.

"Things without all remedy
Should be without regard: what's done, is done."

The Buckley saga as a 'one off' event is being treated 'without regard' : and were it an isolated incident then 'what's done, is done' may well be applicable. BUT that's not the case is it?

There exists many decades of evidence to support the argument that many of the 'operations' which have been closed down were victims of some very dubious 'evidence' artfully manipulated and carefully 'hay-stacked' by the 'Authority'. This has been demonstrated through the many 'battles' lost in the AAT and even in a court of law. Yet any careful study of case history reveals some common threads - not in the 'evidence' formally presented but at the radical event level. In isolation many of the 'charges' brought are amplifications, projections, if you will, of 'something - nothing'. A clerical error for example; aircrew, the world over, are notoriously famed for 'bloody awful' paperwork. Fair call too; end of a long, difficult flight the minutiae can be overlooked by crew still recovering from a tough shift. But I digress.

What has been done and what is still being done to Buckley is not an isolated case; nor is the CASA action 'rare or unusual'. The McDolittle 'inquiry' is still valid; currently exposed as a waste of time, effort and money; nevertheless it could (and should) become productive if it took a long, hard, close look at the extensive list of 'shut-down' operations and the methods used to achieve that goal. IMO that will never happen; should that particular genie ever escape the bottle the ramifications would be significant.

It is possible to present an extensive submission providing not only 'fact' but detailed analysis of how many operations were terminated on some very shaky 'say-so' supported by, shall we say 'enhanced' evidence, artfully embellished. If this current Senate 'inquiry' is to have any meaning, or serve any useful purpose, then now would be a good time to stop fiddling about the edges and take the Buckley saga as a corner stone for setting to rights the 'way' in which matters aeronautical are managed by the CASA and return industry to a place were the regulator can be trusted. Back to the rule of law, not of an opinion manipulated to suit 'the law'.

I know; the fool is dreaming - confusing Australian regulatory action with what the rest of the first world expects of their regulator. But; if it pleases, a man may dream. There now 'if's and buts' v stark reality.

Toot - toot.

 
MTF...P2 

[thorn bird]

Parallels and parallels? or classic examples of how lack of controls, scrutiny and accountability have unintended consequences.....or do they?

They say everyone hates a Monopoly.....unless you happen own one.

Our political class says it abhors monopolies, yet it allows them to exist, for example with our airports. Airports supposedly exist to be utilised, safely, for aviation. Yet our ruling class has allowed them to be subverted by interests who's interests are in direct opposition to their utilisation for the purpose of aviation and the safe conduct of said aviation.

They also say power corrupts....absolute power corrupts absolutely.

We have seen this week in NSW the result of a government agency with unfetted power unseating an elected leader, via a kangaroo court operating pretty much like the Salem Witch trials. We imagine in Australia the rule of law applies, guilt or innocence decided in a court of law where presumption of innocence is paramount, rules for evidence that precludes hearsay and innuendo. Guilt proven beyond reasonable doubt. It would seem ICAC in NSW has set itself up as a parallel judicial system which can destroy careers and reputations via show trials we mock in totalitarian regimes.
No regard as to guilt or innocence just the show, with no accountability.

In our aviation world we face the same lack of accountability. A government agency with unfetted power, that can destroy businesses, careers, reputations and a whole industry, as it sees fit with no scrutiny or accountability.

An organisation that has usurped and corrupted the purpose of the one agency available to fairly arbitrate the probity of its decisions the AAT, turning it into a kangaroo court to conduct show trials for its own grandiloquent purposes.

[Sandy Reith]

Couldn’t agree more with Thornbird, and ICAC and CASA are born out of exactly the same puerile and ignorant notion that for good governance all we need is an independent statutory body that is above politics, outside of Ministerial control and some legal norms.

As though experts are the answer to those qualities of human nature that don’t always work in a state of perfection.

Exactly so, create a monopoly that’s far from the reach of the ballot box as you can. Give powers that we know will lead to sorrow and injustice and inefficiencies all the while at great cost to the taxpayer.

No of course don’t look at the rational institutions that do work like Departments or the proper courts, imperfect but the best we’ve devised so far. Don’t look at improving our judicial institutions or fund them to the point where justice might be available to the ordinary person when up against State sponsored juggernauts who have virtually unlimited power and the resources to crush an underfunded individual.

No let’s all proceed to Nirvana with the experts at the helm and watch in awe at their selfless and altruistic perfect performance of duties.

Go further, why the need for that crass interference with Saturday footy and BBQs having to vote when it makes no difference?

As for Pip Spence’s CASA ‘experts,’ well folks that’s enough laughing, choking, falling over, or having an apoplectic fit, its not healthy and if AVMAD get a whiff of it there goes your medical certificate.

[thorn bird]

All would probably be fine in Aviation Sandy if the experts were actually experts. Unfortunately they are far from expert other than working very hard on what's in it for them. If any of them possessed even the slightest altruistic bent for the well being of those they persecute the industry might not be in the diabolical state it is in.

[Wombat]

I have now read the CASA submissions (#46 and 46.1) to the good Senators. I am simply blown away by them. The craftsmanship, logic and conclusions are superb. I don’t understand how anyone could find fault with CASA or why the Senate should even bother to trouble themselves by questioning CASA at all.

CASA indeed tells the truth in its conclusion to 46.1. I don’t see why anyone could possibly quibble over this statement:

“ Australia has an enviable civil aviation safety record, and an approach to its regulatory functions that is widely acknowledged internationally and by the vast majority of Australians to be sound, sensible, fair and appropriate. CASA’s contribution to both achievements has been, and continues to be, significant.”

Away with me to dig a new burrow somewhere else.

[P7_TOM]

A rental - ?



We do (as it happens) have a burrow Wombat could borrow; all 'mod-cons' and free internet; often used by those seeking refuge from the depression stark reality ruthlessly produces when logic, history and horse sense utterly fails to come to grips with 'the way things are'.




I expect it could be done - a 'word' count from all the submissions made to inquiry etc.  A page count could work. Mission impossible would be to define the cost in man-hours' expended writing submissions to 'inquiry; refuting the CASA claim that all is well. - I reckon there would be some big numbers in that calculation. That before we estimate the cost in dollars/hours to hold an inquiry - bigger number again I'd bet. For two decades industry have been attempting to illuminate a very dark corner; responding with logic, fact and 'operational' reasonableness and acceptance that there must be some form of administration to guide the industry toward regulatory compliance. Seems we have all been very wrong; the Americans, the Europeans, the Kiwi's even ICAO; all have got it very wrong.



It begs the question though don't it - if CASA is so ducking good - why is the aviation world not clamouring at the doors, begging Australia to show the rest of the world the error of it's ways? Only makes sense; why would the FAA not want to adopt the Australian regulation? Perhaps a lynch mob outside FAA HQ if they did would hint at the answer.



Joyce ain't, by any measure, a silly man; he can do joined up writing and numbers too. In fact, he ain't to bad at the numbers. On a purely mathematical basis (in dollars and sense) there is no profit or taxable revenue to be gained from an industry which is being slowly, but incontrovertibly, being killed off by the way it is 'administered'. There are only two options, and bugger all in the way of choices; the minister either believes the CASA confection and supports it; or, accepts industry claims as legitimate and very, very real.



No brainer really is it? Revenue, jobs, progress, versus the Kool Aide induced fog of believing that the CASA, and only the CASA can continue in their present form to decimate a once thriving industry. Millions of words; dollars and life hours spent trying to deliver one simple message to a responsible minister; CASA is a defunct monstrosity - like Frankenstein's monster - a failed experiment. CASA may believe it is 'the way and the light' - but no other bugger, not in the whole wide world does. Fact.!...

[Sandy Reith]

Thanks to Wombat for saving me the trouble and waste of time to find then read the CASA’s submission to the RRAT.
Quote:- “Australia has an enviable civil aviation safety record,….” Etc ad nauseum.
I have posted to the RRAT Senate Committee a printed copy of the Change.org petition of 2016 that I initiated titled “Save Australia’s General Aviation from bureaucratic disaster.”
Out of 2964 signatures some 1000 made particular supporting comments. Many detail personal stories about their aviation businesses going down the drain purely because of CASA’s unworkable regulations and very expensive and time consuming processes. Its a sad job to read the same stories over and over. Similarly many stories of pilots attempting to achieve medical certification through AVMED, enough to cause nightmares. If the vast majority of these pilots were flying RAAUS, or in the USA, no problem, no drawn out seeing specialists, months of stressful waiting or being knocked out altogether. And of course all of the above driving their motor vehicles back and forth to various medical premises and their DAMEs.
Sure, we are envy of the flying world, I know this being an experienced aviator. For example, I’ve removed the wings off my plane to reduce drag. Haven’t taken it up yet but in trial ground runs it accelerates with amazing speed.

[Cap'n Wannabe]

Thanks to Wombat for saving me the trouble and waste of time to find then read the CASA’s submission to the RRAT.
Quote:- “Australia has an enviable civil aviation safety record,….” Etc ad nauseum. 
I have posted to the RRAT Senate Committee a printed copy of the Change.org petition of 2016 that I initiated titled “Save Australia’s General Aviation from bureaucratic disaster.”
Out of 2964 signatures some 1000 made particular supporting comments. Many detail personal stories about their aviation businesses going down the drain purely because of CASA’s unworkable regulations and very expensive and time consuming processes. Its a sad job to read the same stories over and over. Similarly many stories of pilots attempting to achieve medical certification through AVMED, enough to cause nightmares. If the vast majority of these pilots were flying RAAUS, or in the USA, no problem, no drawn out seeing specialists, months of stressful waiting or being knocked out altogether. And of course all of the above driving their motor vehicles back and forth to various medical premises and their DAMEs.
Sure, we are envy of the flying world, I know this being an experienced aviator. For example, I’ve removed the wings off my plane to reduce drag. Haven’t taken it up yet but in trial ground runs it accelerates with amazing speed.

Oh, so that was you?

[Peetwo]

Submissions 62 & 63.

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

62 Royal Flying Doctor Service of Australia (PDF 421 KB) (Sup submission)

Regulatory burdens in the aviation industry

Firstly, the RFDS supports the view that reducing the regulatory burden in the aviation sector wherever possible should be a key focus of the Australian Government and is particularly pertinent in the current climate. In doing so, appropriate, timely consultation with the sector is crucial.

Additionally, any new regulation should clearly provide a value add, with the impact on operations across the sector carefully analysed. It is noted that current processes, such as CASA Industry Working Groups, already provide effective means to consult with the sector on regulatory matters.

Responding to COVID-19 restrictions and challenges

During the initial acute period of the COVID-19 pandemic and associated restrictions, alternate arrangements were made to some regulatory processes in the aviation sector. In some cases, this amounted to streamlining, decentralising and cost savings. There is an opportunity to review, learn from and continue such arrangements going forward.

The RFDS recognises the particular and ongoing efforts of CASA in reviewing many policies and processes in light of ongoing travel restrictions. For example, a number of processes, such as those for flight examiners ordinarily require interstate or even overseas travel, either by RFDS aviation staff or CASA delegates, which obviously has not been possible. Instead, appropriate exemptions have been considered, extended or alternate models of assessment, such as through remote means, employed by CASA.

The RFDS is aware that making such adjustments in response to ongoing COVID-related restrictions has come at an already challenging time for CASA, with significant organisational change occurring over the last 24 months. As the Committee would be aware, this has seen moves towards a more “centralised” approach, and while the RFDS supports streamlining of processes and the assurance of safety in all aspects of aviation as the number one priority, observations are that local knowledge and connections, which we find to have particular value in the rural and remote context, may or have been lost during an already difficult time throughout the pandemic.

Ensuring resourcing of CASA

Lastly, it is critical that all areas of CASA are, and remain, adequately funded to undertake all delegated responsibilities. We are aware of this issue being raised a number of times during this Inquiry. The RFDS is an organisation that since its inception has been reliant on safe, timely and efficient air travel to provide critical health services across Australia. Across our 90 years, we have worked closely and productively with regulators such as CASA to address many unique circumstances relevant to a provider of aeromedical services across such significant geographical distances. The role of overseeing the aviation industry, ensuring its ongoing high levels of safety while
seeking to improve efficiencies for operators is a complex task for the responsible agency.

The RFDS is also acutely aware that necessary precautions and restrictions to ensure the management of COVID-19 is ongoing and will be for some time, while there is also a need to plan for a recovery. Government and regulatory bodies, primarily CASA, must be appropriately resourced for these tasks, in order to ensure agility and responsiveness that provides support to the relevant sectors, and this includes in aviation.

---

63 Agri-muster/Katherine Helicopters (PDF 112 KB)

I put to you that the operation and effectiveness of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority as far as applying the Act as it stands, is woeful. I draw your attention to the Act. Section 8 part 9 CASAs functions in particular paragraph © developing and promulgating appropriate, clear and concise aviation safety standards.

Clear and Concise

This is written in the Act and to me, as a pilot, business owner, employer of pilots and maintenance organisations, is one of the most important lines in the Civil Aviation Act.

Recently I looked at Papua New Guinea's Aviation Rules and regulations. I could understand them. A good example is their flight and duty regulations. The flight and Duty regulations for a helicopter pilot in Papua New Guinea is about 2 pages long. and very easily understood. Ours has 16 different sections and 7 appendixes and I'm still not 100% sure I understand it. I don't say this lightly as I am the Chief pilot of my organisation.

I have been flying since 2003 and in that time all I have seen from CASA is more complex rules that are not Clear and in no way Concise. I believe the problem lies with the Culture in CASA as in that time we have seen many CASA Directors come and go without any change in the direction of the type of rulemaking.
You cannot regulate every last detail of a flight or a pilots life as it would seem they are trying to do.

back to the act. A few paragraphs down, in (g) in CASA's Functions it says 'to promote the development and improvement of the system.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Before the new rules I knew what I had to do to be able to fly a different type of helicopter. Now it is totally unclear the level of training required and by who. What's more, if I ask two separate CASA FOI's I'll get two different answers. This is true about any part of the rules. differing interpretation by FOI's make compliance difficult and proves the system isn't working as surely Clear and concise rules couldn't be misinterpreted.

Further down the page it states that CASA should 2(b) promoting full and effective consultation and communication with all interested parties on aviation safety issues.

Though CASA does conduct surveys and have working groups the results and information coming out of these are by and large ignored and disregarded. Also the questions and answers are pointed and don't allow us to give a fair account on what we really think about the topic in question.

We are living in the result of years of over regulation by people with no real world commercial aviation experience and even worse they seem to have no care factor for those they serve. More than that they seem to be operating to deny us fair and proper process.

CASA have sent out requests for comments on large parts of legislation right at the start of the mustering season and given operators not enough time in their busiest part of the year to respond properly and fairly. They have disregarded advice and done exactly as they pleased with no form of regard to the cost imposed on industry. even though 'At No Cost to industry' was once their tag line.

As an example. I attained my Agricultural rating in 2006. At that time I could do a renewal every two years in any helicopter I was licenced for or wanted to become licenced for. This would cost me between $500.00 and $1000.00. I could do this with any grade 1 instructor. Now I have to do a Robinson type renewal and a Mustering training renewal every 2 years then an Ag or Firefighting rating renewal every year. This is a direct cost to me of around $7000.00 every year. If I had another pilot with the same ratings as myself then you can add that price again. Every year. That's If I can get an instructor in Australia who has the appropriate licences to conduct this training to come to the Northern Territory.

This is clearly not an Improvement of the system. The Fixed wing agricultural operators can and have for the past 15 years or so been able to get Chief pilots from other organisations to do each other's annual checks yet CASA refuse to let the Helicopter Chief pilots do the same? I watched the senate inquiry with Phil Hurst with interest, particularly where you hoped to get a resolution from CASA for the Helicopter Ag Chief pilots to conduct each other's annual checks. this was some 9 months ago, with still no result.

The new rules put EMS work into a different category to aerial work. I live across from the Katherine Hospital and see many different helicopters come and go. I know some of the passengers have been dehydrated, broken legs, gored by buffalo. The list would go on as you can imagine. While Careflight do the majority of medical retrieval work at least in our part of the NT a lot of people are brought to hospital by other machines. These new rules fail the general public by taking this option away. Australians are resilient and no doubt if we see someone in need we will help them, not every patient needs the full complement of careflights capabilities and smaller choppers are spread right across the NT everyday doing mustering and many other Aerial work tasks. why take away this capability to legally save a life or reduce pain.

I was trained properly, to fly safely as a junior pilot. I was lucky enough to fly with many senior pilots who collectively had over 120,000 hours. This mentoring I received has saved me many times over my career. With CASA's current rules I would not have had this opportunity.It is now very difficult for me to legally train my junior pilots to fly safely. The ability of senior pilots to mentor junior pilots has been tied up in too much CASA red tape. The long term effect this will have on aviation safety in Australia should not be underestimated. I don't believe I have been saved once in my career by CASA's new legislation!

I am a pilot not a lawyer and I believe The CAA, CASR, CAO, MOS and other layers of rules being forced upon us are not written for pilots. They are written for lawyers. We cannot comply with the rules if we cannot understand them. Many of the new rules that are about to be thrust upon us are completely unworkable. CASA have been told this by many of us in the industry and Technical working groups but as is their culture they push on and ignore us regardless of the effect it will have.

Maintenance. As I understand, CASA is going away from the current CAR 30 Maintenance organisation to a CAR 145 organisation which is aimed at the big end of town. and a separate system where a Maintenance engineer can work without a CAR 30 certificate and seemingly to a lower standard than what is currently required today. putting the requirements for compliance back on the aircraft owner. This system will be detrimental to safety and detrimental to operators like myself who because my aircraft do Charter as well as Aerial work will have to be maintained to the higher standards. I will be competing with operators who don't conduct charter operations and can therefore maintain their aircraft to a lower standard. Thus creating an uneven playing field. reducing my ability to be competitive on price. I have spoken with my engineer Ian Fairweather from Seabreeze aviation about the up and coming regulations and his concerns are that with reduced CAR organisations there will be less opportunity to be able to take on apprentices and a lack of Licenced engineers is already apparent right across the industry. He felt ignored when he raised concerns with CASA and also said that there was not enough industry consultation, and that by and large the new regulations are not seen as an improvement, not wanted and also the engineers as a group were ignored. Sounds familiar? He also said that airworthiness inspectors have been redirected from face to face contact and where once he had someone he could ring and get an answer from now he has to call a 13 number and wait for a response which may never come. CASA failing industry.

At the moment I operate under an AOC. As I see it in the near future I will need a certificate for operations under part 119 for the charter I currently do and also for aerial ambulance functions, another one under part 133 for rotorcraft air transport, another one under part 137 when the
eventually put helicopter agricultural operations in there, Another one for part 138 for other aerial work, I ask you how this is an improvement? So far four different operating certificates. Will I need four different Chief pilots? I haven't had a clear answer yet. Clear and Concise.

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

GAAN review published - 

From BJ's thread:

---

Please Sir - A GANDER AT THE GAAN??

Ref: 12.1 Supplementary to submission 12 (PDF 461 KB) & Today's NT GA inquiry Public Hearing in pictures.

For now the GAAN report is yet to be tabled...(sigh - )...but perhaps we can make some conclusions from the hinted at GAAN submission to the FAASIP (Future of Australia's Aviation Sector Issues Paper)??

Consistent with its more recent practice, GAAN members have recently completed a Policy Note document outlining a strategic approach to a simplified Classification of Operations, which is linked to the development and implementation of Sector Risk Profiles for different types of general aviation operations. A simplified Classificaton of Operations would deliver greater regulatory efficiency, clarify priorities and enhance safety outcomes, whilst lowering the costs of compliance and barriers to entry.

In addition, GAAN members are currently preparing two further Policy Note documents. One will deal with airspace classification and management, while the other will provide a condensed strategy for the sector's ongoing viability. It is currently anticipated that both documents will be completed towards, or soon after, the end of calendar year 2020.

The GAAN's plan for general aviation has the following ten strategic initiatives:

1. Economic review of the sector to identify its value to the economy, look behind frontline participants to the users of, and demand for, general aviation services and to stimulate investment in fleet renewal and sector expansion;
2. GA's relationship with CASA and others, to address cultural, systemic and practice-based issues;
3. Review of the Civil Aviation Act 1988 to make the law fit-for-purpose, remove irrelevancies, promote international harmonisation, serve as a head of power for ongoing reform, improve CASA's governance and reduce the potential for impediments to innovation and economic harm;
4. Airspace for GA operations, to address equitable airspace access and support for new technologies; and airports and infrastructure facilities and policy to support general aviation flight and ground-based activities for all aspects of the sector;
5. Adoption of a simplified Classification of Operations;
6. Application of Sector Risk Profiles (in conjunction with a simplified Classification of Operations and consistent with the above);
7. Cooperative regulation principles, to leverage industry expertise for shared safety outcomes;
8. Reform of GA-specific parts of the regulatory set, to repair recently­ introduced obligations on industry that have increased costs and complexity in several parts of the GA sector;
9. Improved management of CASA, directed to continuous improvement, quality assurance, complaints handling, engagement and decision making; and
10. Training pathways to assure the ongoing availability of skills and competencies for the sector, by dealing with student support programs, duplication between government agencies, for better outcomes for trainees and reduced cost and complexity for industry.

As the GAAN continues to develop these policy recommendations, it will observe its operating protocols and so report directly to the Minister.

Hmm...in the context of that ToR and given the evidence put forward by the cross industry respected AAAA's CEO Phil Hurst, it is worth remembering that this report, in company with KC's AMROBA submission to the RRAT,  is currently being reviewed by BJ's Office Department minions and will by necessity require a response from BJ well before the next election...

GAAN review finally published...   

A New Strategy for the Australian General Aviation Sector


Executive Summary and Synopsis

Consistent with its role and through its regular meetings, the GAAN has developed this strategic
paper to assist government in its consideration of General Aviation issues and opportunities, on
behalf of the sector as a whole, in order to frame and communicate its recommended strategy for
the sector’s success.

The GAAN’s vision for General Aviation in Australia is as follows:

A critical aviation sector contributing to the national economy, job creation and the well-being of
communities, strengthened by government policies and cooperative regulation underpinned by
deep engagement with industry, that is fair, risk-based, responsive to cost and innovation and
which promotes the value of the sector.

In order to attain this vision, the unique characteristics of the General Aviation sector are examined, identifying wide diversity, limited political influence, high sensitivity to market influences, overregulation and lack of incentives to investment.

The extensive economic, environmental and social benefits to the Australian economy have been
listed with a view to further study and analysis. Nevertheless, it is clear from the listing provided that General Aviation is an over-achiever in terms of national contribution, yet too-often ill considered in national policy formulation and related settings.

The strategic position of the General Aviation sector as an enabler of many national benefits is
considered and from these, eight strategic initiatives are derived. These initiatives condense the ten point plan made by the GAAN in its submission to the Australian Government’s Future of Australia’s Aviation Sector - Issues Paper1 , which calls for input to a five-year aviation industry plan.

These strategic initiatives are arranged in issues-solutions-actions themes to support practical
consideration. They are as follows:

1. Economic review of the sector to identify its value to the economy, looking behind frontline
participants to the users of, and demand for, GA services and to provide all levels of
government and industry with better information for supportive policy implementation;

2. Creating a world-class regulatory environment for General Aviation, to address cultural,
systemic and practice-based issues currently hampering GA’s relationship with and the
effectiveness of CASA through the adoption of a better Classification of Operations policy,
cooperative regulation principles, and the application of GA sector risk profiles, along with
the reform of GA-specific rulesets imposing unnecessary costs and red tape;

3. Review of the Civil Aviation Act 1988 to ensure that CASA and the regulations it creates do
not impose unecessary costs on industry while providing the capability for a modern
approach to regulation of General Aviation including harmonisation with best international
practice, outcome-based regulations, cooperation with industry to access expertise and to
drive continuous improvement, improve CASA’s governance and reduce the potential for
impediments to innovation and economic harm;

4. Training pathways to ensure the ongoing availability of skills and competencies for the
sector by dealing with student support programs, duplication between government
agencies, better outcomes for trainees and reduced cost and complexity for industry;

5. Airports and infrastructure facilities and policy to support General Aviation flight and
ground-based activities for all aspects of the sector;

6. Airspace for GA operations, to address equitable airspace access and support new
technologies, national security, safety and operational efficiency;

7. Aviation design, manufacture and export to capitalise on Australia’s proven innovation to
create jobs and compete in international markets by identifying and removing unecessary
red tape while championing the potential of the industry to grow significantly while
providing national capability enhancements and sustainable jobs; and

8. Early adoption of technology and a facilitation process to support, extend and leverage
Australia’s aircraft engineering, research and development capabilities, fostering innovation
and realising economic, environmental and social benefits that reach beyond the sector.

GAAN has addressed each of these issues with practical initiatives that will reposition General
Aviation to take advantage of its opportunities and to make an even greater contribution to the
Australian community and the national interest.

An Appendix is included, containing the Policy Note previously developed by the GAAN, directed to
the linkage between risk-based regulation and understanding of risk in various aspects of the sector.

---

( P2 comment: At this stage the GAAN report is yet to be tabled by the RRAT and I am not sure if the committee members have been privy to and/or had a chance to consider the report?)  

MTF...P2 

[Kharon]

Out loud - Head scratching.

Indulgence required. I've been trying for a fortnight now to puzzle out how best to 'solve' the aviation reform quandary. It is worth some serious consideration now, as we seem to have a minister who is prepared to consider 'change' with the sand to get it done, supported by some first class 'advisers' - who are very much aware of the need for 'reform' if the industry is to not only survive, but thrive. Its the best opportunity we have had in many a long weary year. Be an everlasting shame on industry if this slipped by - or worse, we allow a repeat of the emasculation the ASRR suffered, the consequences of that self evident.

I believe the best and probably the only way forward is the adoption of the FAR; in one form or another. However, the FAR have many benefits and significant cost saving for both the industry and government purse. It is time Australia joined the 'global village' of aviation; not to do so will further exclude the nation from trade agreements and licensing of product by those nations which cannot and will not sanction Australian paperwork supporting. For instance, there are some very good 'Australian' products and technology businesses operating 'off-shore' - which would be happy to bring the business home, along with the jobs and revenue - but cannot - due to the lack of harmonisation. This, stand alone is worthy of ministerial action.

But what of the rest? Those who toil under the CASA compliance lash, struggling to be seen as compliant against a known element which can be as ruthless to some as it is benevolent to others. There is, in reality and fact a serious, deep fear of CASA and the application of the law as it stands today. A fellah called Mazowita along with Ilik espoused and made fact that a 99/9% 'safe' conviction rate was the key to aviation safety; rather than a 95% rate. The USA and the FAR take a different approach to 'risk'. The 'code' for criminal behaviour is separated from the FAR; and, Gods help you if you fall fowl of it - but the 'crime' must be proven, beyond reasonable doubt, in court, with a 'defence' part of the rule of law. Not so in Australia. The subconscious, ever present threat of a criminal conviction, without the opportunity of mounting a defence is abhorrent. Take a look at FAR 43 and see the different approach to risk mitigation etc. Then take a look at the Australian 'enforcement manual'. Restoring Australian rules to a clear separation of 'criminal' and 'civil' code would be a brilliant start to 'segue' into an adoption of the FAR. This could be done, part 9A of the Act a good start point.

The minister however must be prepared to withstand the CASA arguments against adopting an ICAO compliant, world accepted, gold standard and to keep the aviation industry hobbled and firmly attached to Mummy's apron strings. As we all know, Mummy smacks, hard and often.

Aye well - apologies for the ramble, just trying to get my head around why we are still stuck with the misbegotten, counter productive, counter intuitive, bloody awful rule set which is preventing an industry from reaching it's full potential.

Right then, back to my knitting.

Toot - toot.

[Peetwo]

Submission 65 - ALAEA

Via the RRAT inquiry webpages: 

Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Assocation (PDF 5585 KB)

Application of the Civil Aviation Act and is the legislative and regulatory framework underpinning CASA’s aviation safety management functions fit for purpose?

In short – No.

The main object of the Civil Aviation Act (the Act) is “to establish a regulatory framework for maintaining, enhancing and promoting the safety of civil aviation, with particular emphasis on preventing aviation accidents and incidents.” One of CASA’s main functions under the Act is “developing and promulgating appropriate, clear and concise aviation safety standards;” and the Act was amended in 2019 to include a requirement for CASA to “consider the economic and cost impact on individuals, businesses and the community of the standards;” when doing so.

28 years ago a goal was set to create a three tiered aviation safety regulatory system. This was also a recommendation of the 2014 Aviation Safety Review. This goal seems as far away today as it at its inception.

Simultaneous regulations in place for the past decade

We have observed significant shortcomings in the legislative and regulatory frameworks particularly in relation to aircraft airworthiness and maintenance. A decade after the making and introduction of the Maintenance Suite of Regulations (Civil Aviation Safety Regulations (CASR) Parts 42, 145, 147 and 66) there still exists Civil Aviation Regulations (CAR) 30 and 42 relating to maintenance and licencing for a large sector of the aviation community particularly in the areas servicing rural and regional Australia. There are large sections of the General Aviation industry where the two sets of regulations overlap causing unnecessary confusion and uncertainty. The situation will become more convoluted with the proposed introduction of CASR Part 43, currently under development (and well over schedule) in an attempt to regulate the maintenance of General Aviation aircraft. Part 43 has been proposed to cover not only the maintenance requirements of the aircraft (I.e. what must be done and when) but also the requirements of organisations maintaining the aircraft, as well as the training and licencing of engineers.

These requirements are already catered for in both the CAR and CASR’s Part 42 (continuing airworthiness), Part 66 (engineer licencing), Car 30 and Part 145 (approved maintenance organisations).

As it stands the introduction of the proposed Part 43 will create multiple levels of standards and training for engineers who are essentially working on the same aircraft but in different operations classifications and will remove the requirements for qualifications for important specialist skills such as aircraft welding, composite repairs and Non-Destructive Testing. Ideally aircraft airworthiness, approved maintenance organisations, engineer licencing, and maintenance training should be found in the CASR’s only.

They are Parts 42 (continuing airworthiness), 145 (approved organisations) 66 (licencing) and 147 (training) supported by a Manual of Standards (MOS) and the appropriate supporting Guidance Material and Acceptable Means of Compliance (AMC and GM). Clear and concise regulation should not need any additional material to explain its purpose or how to comply. Our criticisms of the Part 43 proposal have been magnified by the consultation process outlined later in this submission.

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

Submission 65 - ALAEA

Via the RRAT inquiry webpages: 

Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Assocation (PDF 5585 KB)

Application of the Civil Aviation Act and is the legislative and regulatory framework underpinning CASA’s aviation safety management functions fit for purpose?

In short – No.

The main object of the Civil Aviation Act (the Act) is “to establish a regulatory framework for maintaining, enhancing and promoting the safety of civil aviation, with particular emphasis on preventing aviation accidents and incidents.” One of CASA’s main functions under the Act is “developing and promulgating appropriate, clear and concise aviation safety standards;” and the Act was amended in 2019 to include a requirement for CASA to “consider the economic and cost impact on individuals, businesses and the community of the standards;” when doing so.

28 years ago a goal was set to create a three tiered aviation safety regulatory system. This was also a recommendation of the 2014 Aviation Safety Review. This goal seems as far away today as it at its inception.

Simultaneous regulations in place for the past decade

We have observed significant shortcomings in the legislative and regulatory frameworks particularly in relation to aircraft airworthiness and maintenance. A decade after the making and introduction of the Maintenance Suite of Regulations (Civil Aviation Safety Regulations (CASR) Parts 42, 145, 147 and 66) there still exists Civil Aviation Regulations (CAR) 30 and 42 relating to maintenance and licencing for a large sector of the aviation community particularly in the areas servicing rural and regional Australia. There are large sections of the General Aviation industry where the two sets of regulations overlap causing unnecessary confusion and uncertainty. The situation will become more convoluted with the proposed introduction of CASR Part 43, currently under development (and well over schedule) in an attempt to regulate the maintenance of General Aviation aircraft. Part 43 has been proposed to cover not only the maintenance requirements of the aircraft (I.e. what must be done and when) but also the requirements of organisations maintaining the aircraft, as well as the training and licencing of engineers.

These requirements are already catered for in both the CAR and CASR’s Part 42 (continuing airworthiness), Part 66 (engineer licencing), Car 30 and Part 145 (approved maintenance organisations).

As it stands the introduction of the proposed Part 43 will create multiple levels of standards and training for engineers who are essentially working on the same aircraft but in different operations classifications and will remove the requirements for qualifications for important specialist skills such as aircraft welding, composite repairs and Non-Destructive Testing. Ideally aircraft airworthiness, approved maintenance organisations, engineer licencing, and maintenance training should be found in the CASR’s only.

They are Parts 42 (continuing airworthiness), 145 (approved organisations) 66 (licencing) and 147 (training) supported by a Manual of Standards (MOS) and the appropriate supporting Guidance Material and Acceptable Means of Compliance (AMC and GM). Clear and concise regulation should not need any additional material to explain its purpose or how to comply. Our criticisms of the Part 43 proposal have been magnified by the consultation process outlined later in this submission.

Addendum: CASE Studies and Motherhood statements

Case Study 1. Eurocopter / Kawasaki BK117

The following is a real example of the system in practice.

The BK117

A Mechanical LAME with extensive experience on the Eurocopter / Kawasaki MBB-BK117
helicopter, which is used extensively in the search and rescue and for firefighting activities,
transitioned from the CAR 31 licence system to the Part 66 system with an exclusion against
certifying for the electrical systems. The BK117 was not classified as a complex helicopter
under CAR31 and did not require additional Type training to be carried out. Because it has
two engines CASA reclassified it as Large meaning, that Type training is now required.

The LAME enrolled in a TAFE exclusion removal course costing $3500 to have the electrical
exclusions removed from his basic licence. In effect this training was the equivalent of the
previous Group 2 electrical category licence and if it was attained under the previous
system, he would have been qualified to certify the electrical systems of the Bk117 and 18
other twin-engine helicopters with no additional training. However due to the
administrative reclassification of those helicopters, he was required to also carry out
approved Type training. At the time there were no “approved” training courses available. He
had already completed two equivalent courses run by the manufacturer of the helicopter,
however as the helicopter had never required CASA approved training under CAR31, the
manufacturer had never needed to have their courses approved. The approval process is
long and expensive and the opportunity for a commercial return for an approval is limited.

The LAME had also held a Maintenance Authorisation (MA) issued by CASA covering the
majority of the aircraft electrical system. The inability of the LAME to be able to meet the
new qualification requirements set by CASA in Part 66 meant that his employer was
required to contract in Avionic LAMEs to certify for the electrical work on the aircraft, even
though the work was completely within the skills set of the LAME in question.

The ALAEA made numerous representations on the LAME’s behalf, and eventually CASA
issued a new MA covering the electrical systems – in effect removing the exclusions.

However, an MA has restrictions – it restricts the holder to a single employer and they are
not allowed to certify for other people’s work as a normal LAME does. This means no other
engineers, including apprentices in the workplace, can obtain and record experience on the
aircraft.

So, on one hand CASA recognises he has the skills, training and experience to certify for
maintenance, but on the other hand, the regulations prevent them from issuing him a
licence reflecting that.

To this end the LAME made an application for an exemption to the regulations with respect
to the CASA approved Type training. This application costs several thousand dollars to make.

The application was submitted in May 2019, and in July 2019, it was indicated to him that
the exemption would be supported. It was eventually issued in January 2021, the process
taking 19 months. The regulations are too complex to grant him an exemption.

This is just for one helicopter – consider the costs for the other 18. Hundreds of thousands
of dollars in course fees, travel and business costs for the 2 years of additional training. For
no additional safety benefit.

Case study 2. Discriminatory regulations

This case study is about an ALAEA member who held a CAR 31 licence covering fixed wing
aircraft and helicopters including multiple helicopters reclassified from Group 19 under
CAR31 to “Large” under Part 66. The LAME moved from Australia around 2004 and worked
around the world in countries including New Zealand, the US and Angola on helicopters and
fixed wing aircraft and running his own maintenance organisation for a number of years
until returning to Australia in 2016

The LAME had successfully renewed his CASA licence a number of times in the period up to
2010. Unfortunately, in 2010 the licence application renewal process didn’t run smoothly
due to a number of factors and as a result the licence wasn’t renewed at the time.

In 2016 the LAME unsuccessfully attempted to apply for a new licence under Part 66 based
on the qualifications on his previous Australian licence but this was rejected as there was no
regulatory mechanism to allow CASA to refer to his previous Australian licence. He was
required to have his qualifications assessed by a 3rd party training organisation approved
under Part 147 (= $$$$) before CASA would issue a new licence. BUT because CASA had
reclassified the helicopters from Grp 19 to Large (Type rated) the 147 training school wasn’t
able to issue a certificate to CASA that included the helicopters previously covered by the
CAR 31 licence. Thus, the LAME was left with a new licence that wasn’t equivalent to the
one he held under CAR 31 and would be required to undergo expensive and extensive
training and travel merely to achieve what he had held 5 years earlier and had been working
on extensively in that same period under his US, Angolan and NZ licences.

The major irony here is had he held a foreign licence that listed aircraft type ratings and the
licence had expired, CASA would have been able to add those licences from the expired
foreign licence to a Part 66 licence without any additional training requirements.

CASA Regulatory Philosophy – A Motherhood Statement.6

CASA displays on their website their “regulatory philosophy”. This submission would like to
draw the Committee’s attention to philosophy number 2.

2. Mindful of the primacy of air safety, CASA takes account of all relevant considerations, including
cost

Although safety must always be CASA's 'most important consideration', this does not mean that safety
is the only consideration CASA takes into account when performing its regulatory functions and
exercising its regulatory powers. CASA is required to take all relevant considerations, including cost, into
account.

Where reasonable alternative approaches to the fulfillment of a regulatory requirement satisfy
applicable legal requirements and do not unacceptably compromise safety. 

CASA will readily entertain such alternatives if they are proposed, and accept them in the absence of
compelling reasons not to do so.

The examples in case studies 1 & 2 demonstrate clearly that the philosophy is simply a
motherhood statement with no effect in the real world.

In the LAME’s case in case study 1, reasonable alternate approaches have been put to CASA
to the extent that CASA have permitted the LAME to certify and release aircraft, they
support the issuing of an exemption because there is an absence of compelling reasons not
to do so, yet it took 19 months to finally issue the exemption.

In reality CASA could rectify the problem with a simple amendment of the Part 66 Manual of
Standards (MoS) identifying the helicopters in question and specifying the training required
(as they already do for aircraft such as the Air Tractor, DHC-4 and RUAG 228 which are large
aircraft by weight, yet classified as small aircraft for licencing).

Unfortunately, even a simple amendment requires CASA Standards and legal drafting
resources, and sufficient resources haven’t been made available. It also requires people
inside CASA with the necessary experience.

In the case of the LAME in case study 2, a review and simple amendment to allow CASA to
make an assessment against a previously held Australian licence would have solved the
problem; however the resources and directions to implement these simple solutions simply
aren’t there.

It appears only a single person has been allocated to the review of Part 66 licencing and
other resources have been diverted to other projects such as the highly secretive Part 43 –
General Aviation regulations.

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

CASA & ASA Estimates sessions - It's all about the SOE??

Via Youtube:

Hmm...perhaps the above explains this...

Via the Yaffa:

Senate Committee extends GA Inquiry Deadline
25 October 2021

The Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport (RRAT) has extended the deadline for the final report on the general aviation industry.

The inquiry, which began in December 2019, was originally scheduled to table the final report on the last parliamentary sitting day of November 2021, but this week the deadline was extended to a date yet to be announced.

A spokesperson from the office of RRAT Chair Senator Susan McDonald told Australian Flying that work on the inquiry would continue.

“The inquiry will be extended, as per an RRAT committee decision on Wednesday, and there will be more hearings in November – but we only gave available dates to secretariat yesterday, so there are no definite dates just yet.”

The inquiry has struggled to get material thanks to COVID-19 restrictions and has held only three inquiries and received only 63 submissions since it commenced.

An interim report tabled in December 2020 stated only that not enough had been done to table an interim report, with Senator McDonald's office laying the blame at the feet of the coronavirus.

MTF...P2 

ps I note that Ms Spence appears to have done away with the bollocks title of DAS, both on her name tag and in introducing herself??

[Sandy Reith]

We can only hope, they say hope springs eternal. For the sake of General Aviation let’s hope that eternal isn’t applied to the hope of reform for GA.

The small hint that Ms Spence has dropped the fatuous title of “Director of Air Safety” might be a good omen. The CEO of CASA does not direct the safety of any flight, the regulations codify the parameters that government thinks are acceptable standards. Those ‘directly’ involved in flying, be it ATC, pilots, engineers or refueling are responsible for safety of operations.

As Ms. Spence put it, albeit unintentionally in the context of her promotional message about flight safety, she has “feet on the ground.”

[Sandy Reith]

In regard to the meagre 64 submissions to the drawn out RRAT Senate Committee inquiry I have posted a printed copy of the comments that were part of the petition I ran in 2016. Around one thousand of the almost 3000 signatories wrote specific comments to amplify on the subject of the petition to government which was:-
“To save General Aviation from bureaucratic disaster.”

If the Committee has a genuine desire to sound the GA community about the obvious sickening of GA these past 30 years, then here’s a thousand writing in favour of reform and many detailed stories about the horrors of dealing with CASA and it’s debilitating and unworkable regulations.

On top of that one would have to ask has the RRAT Committee looked carefully at the 269 submissions of the 2014 Forsyth inquiry and it’s recommendations?
Truly there was no need for another inquiry, let alone over two years while the industry is bleeding to death. And then along came COVID to hasten the demise.

Hold the line, are you extending? GA is drowning how about a lifeline?

A few interim reforms might at least give heart and show bone fides. Stroke of your pen Ms. Spence, don’t wait for Barnaby and be the first leader in the last 50 years to make a difference for the good of Australia.

You would be elevated to hero status by everyone in GA.

[Peetwo]

EWH on McDolittle 20/20 inquiry extension -   

Via the Yaffa: http://www.australianflying.com.au/the-l...tober-2021

Hard decisions are, by definition, never easy to make. Last week the senate RRAT committee decided to delay further the final report of an inquiry that began nearly two years ago. The easy decision would have been to simply go with what they had, but the recommendations and conclusions would have been easy meat for political carnivores that would prefer the whole thing to just go away. As it is, the senate inquiry is self-referred, which means to say that the government didn't ask for it, but the senate saw the need for it anyway. Under normal circumstances, the final report would be very ignorable. Today I am feeling the the current Minister for Transport and Infrastructure is more likely to appreciate the findings than the previous person in the seat. However, presenting a report that is less than comprehensive undermines the integrity of the whole inquiry and wouldn't help the minister understand the problems better. It is true that the inquiry has been plagued by a plague, but that wouldn't silence the critics who would be very quick to point out that the inquiry didn't probe enough to justify its findings. The only decision that could be made is to postpone the final report date and keep digging. In the end, there is too much as stake for the GA community.

MTF...P2