[Peetwo]

The end is nigh for Oz GA industry? 

Via the Oz today:

Concerns voiced over civil aviation safety charter overhaul

The Australian
Concerns voiced over civil aviation safety charter overhaul.


Dick Smith with his Cessna Citation plane at Ballina Airport.

Air charter operators are predicting the “complete destruction” of general aviation in Australia as a result of plans to impose airline-equivalent safety standards on their businesses.

As revealed by The Australian last month, the proposed overhaul of Civil Aviation Safety regulation 135 will require charter operators to hire a safety manager and undertake additional paperwork to meet the higher standard.

Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development Minister Michael McCormack and Civil Aviation Safety Authority chief executive Shane Carmody said the “revolutionary” changes would improve the clarity of aviation safety regulations.

But Airspeed Aviation chief pilot and managing director Ben Wyndham said the changes would add about $200,000 a year to his operating costs.

“We’re already living hand-to-mouth as a result of the privatisation of the airports and the corporatisation of Airservices,” Mr Wyndham said.

He predicted of the 500 charter operators in Australia, only a handful would survive by 2021 after the changes took effect.

“There’s a lot of little flying schools that have a bit of charter on the side to bring in some extra cash,” Mr Wyndham said.

“You’re not going to maintain a safety manager, quality manager and have third-party audits to keep one aircraft doing charter. All of those operators will let their charter licence lapse and lose that bit of their revenue.”

Aviator and businessman Dick Smith said what CASA was doing was an “impossible ask”.

Perth-based Complete Aviation Services chief executive and chief pilot Stuart Burns described the regulatory reform as “soul destroying”.

“Most operators impacted by these new regulations are small and medium enter­prises,” Mr Burns said. “The attitude taken by CASA is that all these businesses are mainline airlines and should have the same resources and structure as Qantas and Virgin.”

Mr McCormack said the changes were “scalable” to the complexity of aviation activity.

Counter that with this load of Horse Pooh from the RAAus Missing Linke - FDS! 

Also via the Oz:

Flexible recreational aviation approach helps lift pilot numbers


Light-handed regulation is helping one sector of Australia’s aviation industry buck the general decline in pilot numbers, but stakeholders say more flexibility is needed.

In the past five years, more than 1000 new members have joined Recreation Aviation Australia (RAAus), which has its own licensing regime approved by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority.

As a result, RAAus now has almost 10,000 pilots on its books and close to 3500 aircraft.

In contrast, the number of private pilot licence holders with the Civil Aviation Safety Authority has been steadily falling since 2010, to fewer than 16,000.

RAAus chief executive Michael Linke said the regulations under which their members operated were essentially a “carve-out of CASA legislation”.

“They’ve carved out a sector that can self-administer and continue to operate in these different conditions,” Mr Linke said. “In terms of safety and adminis­tration, (our regulations) are ­pretty much identical to the CASA rule set but there is some give and take.”

That includes the ability for RAAus members to decide for themselves whether they are fit to fly, along with restrictions on where they operate — with controlled airspace and night operations off limits.

They are also limited to carrying one passenger, and aircraft must have a take-off weight of no more than 600kg.

RAAus chairman Michael Monck said the sector still faced significant regulatory challenges.

“In some cases, smaller aircraft operators are held to the same standards as a Qantas or Virgin type of operation, based on the physical characteristics of an aircraft rather than the activities that are undertaken,” he said.

He said the industry wanted consideration to be given to the type of people involved in a flight.

Hmm...??

MTF...P2 

[thorn bird]

"Air charter operators are predicting the “complete destruction” of general aviation in Australia as a result of plans to impose airline-equivalent safety standards on their businesses."

airline-equivalent???...equivalent to what? employing a half a dozen "Bright young Things" with lots of letters after their names to sit in offices staring at facebook all day, or annoy the crap out of productive staff with forms and survey's and reports, just to run a couple of navajo's on night freight? This is the mandarins mandating industry work like the public service, dozens of people employed to lick a stamp. Well Mr Carmody, problem is unlike the public miss-service industry doesn't have a bottomless public purse, it has to turn a profit, so your Part 135 and the rest of the gobbledegook you and your cohorts call regulation is a complete waste of public money, with no industry what's the point of the regulations.

[Gobbledock]

Herr Linke

The Missing Linke likes to waffle on about ‘carving’. I think he has carved a giant piece out of Shane Carmodys freckle with his tongue! Fool.

[Peetwo]

AIPA's got a point, but do we really need yet another review?   

Via aipa.org.au :

TIME TO REVIEW AUSTRALIA’S AVIATION SAFETY REGIME

29/03/2019 | Author: Mark Sedgwick

Whenever an airliner accident happens, pilots are constantly asked what they think about the cause and the circumstances. So it’s no surprise that Boeing’s current problems are prompting a lot of discussion.

Fortunately aviation incidents and accidents are rare. In fact, globally they are at historic lows.

According to the Flight Safety Foundation, in 2018 there was one fatal accident for every 2.52 million flights. That’s 15 fatal airliner accidents resulting in 556 fatalities worldwide.

By comparison, our national road toll statistics show that last year it is estimated that 1143 people died on Australian roads.

More than twice as many people died on our roads as were killed in major air accidents worldwide in 2018 and none of those were killed in Australian skies. 

The current level of global aviation safety has not come about by chance. As pilots, we continually strive to be alert for potential errors, to minimise mistakes and eliminate accidents.

The recent accidents involving two new Boeing 737 Max aircraft have focused public attention and concern on how this can happen today, after decades of consistently falling accident rates.

Improvements in safety systems, technology, engine reliability and training for everyone involved in aviation has led to ever increasing improvements in safety margins.

So what needs to be done to further reduce these statistics? Painstaking investigations into these accidents will piece together every detail of the sequence of events that led up to the accident.

Investigators will work to establish where the normal checks and balances designed to prevent such accidents broke down.
But there are important questions which also need to be asked about regulation and oversight, following the 737 Max accidents, in the US and elsewhere.

Following the tragic loss of the Ethiopian Airlines aircraft last month, regulators around the world grounded the 737 Max.
Notably, the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) was one of the last to move. Australia’s Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) was among the first.

The FAA, which oversees the regulation of aviation in the US, also has another role, to encourage and develop civil aeronautics, including new aviation technology. There is an inherent conflict between safety regulation and encouraging economic development, which may well have influenced the FAA’s oversight and certification of the 737 Max.

In the US there is now growing concern that the FAA has grown is too close to Boeing and too trusting of the aircraft maker’s internal processes.

It is a matter of concern that the FAA, at a time when the regulator has lost staff and had its resources reduced, may have relied to heavily on Boeing employees to approve the design of the B737 Max.

It should be stressed that these investigations are not yet complete. As pilots, we would reserve judgment on such things until we are more fully informed.

There is no doubt however that aviation regulatory bodies should not become too close to the commercial interests they are supposed to monitor, whether they are airlines, manufacturers or other players in the aviation industry.

In Australia this means our regulator should also be operating at arms-length from commercial entities.

Recently, an amendment was proposed to the Australian Civil Aviation Act to: “consider the economic and cost impact on individuals, businesses and community of the standards.”

However, more oversight of the industry rather than less will be needed should the regulator’s focus on safety be given an overt commercial axis to consider.

The second part of the amendment says: “[CASA must] take into account the differing risks associated with different industry sectors”.

So what will this mean for how CASA assesses the economic impact of safety regulations and policy on larger airlines?

If major airlines are thought to be less risky then do they require less oversight in balancing commercial imperatives versus safety outcomes? Or should CASA have more resources to support this new approach to aviation safety.

One glaring omission from the current Australian safety framework is the absence of operational pilots on the Aviation Safety Advisory Panel that provides CASA with informed, objective advice on current, emerging and potential issues that have, or may have, significant implications for aviation safety.

In recent times, the only pilots sitting on the panel have been representatives of airline and aviation industry management, not operational pilots who are an integral part of aviation safety.

In the light of what we are seeing overseas, it’s time to review this position and appoint independent pilot representatives to the panel that directly advises CASA.

Working pilots are best placed to understand the impacts of policy and regulation on operations and on safety outcomes.
By choosing independent representatives we can ensure that the balance on aviation oversight and policy is maintained.

Now consider this from our former (maybe soon to be current) miniscule for non-aviation: ref - Aviation in Election 2019: 'Dead buried and cremated' - The MOAS strikes again. 

Former miniscule for Non-Aviation Albo the Great White Whale: ...For some in the aviation sector, this bill won't go far enough, and I accept that. But it does take an important step in the right direction. It's a sign of progress in an area where any change must be carefully considered, and that's why it has been the subject of broad support across the sector. For example, Regional Air Express, the airline that services much of regional Australia said in a statement:


"..Regional Express (Rex) welcomes the proposed amendment to the Civil Aviation Act 1998 which requires the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) to consider the economic and cost impact, in the development and promulgation of aviation safety standards, on individuals, businesses and the community and to take into account the differing risks associated with different aviation sectors..."

In closing, I thank the minister for his cooperation on this issue. The job of transport minister is a difficult one. I hope to be able to experience that again the next time this parliament sits. But, in government or opposition, I would say that I want to work with my counterpart when it comes to transport issues and, in particular, when it comes to aviation safety. That's why we've agreed on just one speaker a side in order to fast-track the passage of this legislation so it can get to the Senate. I commend the legislation to the House. 

Does AIPA seriously think that anything is going to change while pollywaffles of both major parties continue to drink from the Can'tberra MOAS Koolaid fountain? - FDS...



Meanwhile in the real world on the coalface: ref - Mr John Hancox (PDF 44 KB) 

To the Senators

Firstly, I would like to thank you for creating the opportunity to submit my views and real examples of the failings of
Airservices Australia.

I believe That AS is focused on only meeting minimum requirements.

Operational staff have watched with genuine interest the Senate estimates questioning of ARFFS. Staff are as
frustrated as the Senate with the responses to questions and the continued “smoke and mirrors” approach AS
management have taken.
I’m approaching 37 years’ service and haven’t seen AS management this arrogant and deceptive to the real issues.
AS management continue to provide a facade that all is fine, which on face value appears to be the case, however
once you go beyond the shiny brochures and delve into their processes and systems you find gross negligence.

There exists a disconnect between AS management and front-line staff. The business/ARFFS focuses on minimum
requirements which is deemed adequate. How this aligns with AS priorities, strategies or values is questionable.
This corporate mindset compromises operational staff whom never see outcomes delivered for capability and/or
safety. The Government Service Delivery Capability Model surely is not being met in its’ format or intent.

The lack of accountability and reduction in standards clearly identifies a compromised relationship between current
AS management and CASA.
The statements made to the Senate at various times are quite laughable if they weren’t so serious. AS managers
either don’t know the correct answers which they should, or they don’t want to tell the truth.
The statement made to Senate that” changes aren’t budget driven” is quite remarkable. This raises the question
why AS Management won’t tell Senate the real situation, examples below provide an insight.

1. Push for change of threshold for ARFFS to 500 thousand movements: AS were struggling with growth and needed
to stop new stations opening. Hoping to create freeing up of assets particularly fire vehicles and staff. There was no
other plan and the delays to projects and working group findings will now bite the ARFF due to lack of forward
planning. Vehicles remain a concern due to no action being taken in a timely manner. Vehicle 5 replacement
program has been recently reviewed after being shelved for five years from the initial report (have a hard copy of
original report). Nothing has changed. There is still a need to create capacity first for various reasons (particularly at
category nine and ten) then start to replace the rest of fleet in future budgets. The fact ARFF brought the MK7
vehicle back into service when was moth-balled and still haven’t organised replacements against these vehicles
shows something is wrong. A new vehicle takes around two years to get into service from signing of contract; hence
you must be in front of the game very early.

2. Station new builds and renovations have become embarrassing. The cost blowout is common place. Futureproofing
with operational focus isn’t happening correctly. Brisbane’s renovations went from $2.8 million to around
$5.2 million. Brisbane’s new station for the new runway has many issues- recently it was discovered the fire access
road from the station has been removed. Concept of Operations raised many issues which still haven’t been
addressed, as the desk-top scenarios were with old category ten staffing and not the new cross-crewing model. The
positioning of the Fire Station has been debated by operational staff with the project team since day one of project
and continues to fall on deaf ears.

3. Safety critical issues remain caught up in AS systems with fixes not completed in timely manner. Darwin incident is
an example of fixes not being carried out; even when the inquiry states AS were remorseful and Comcare had a PIN.
The DSU paperwork is a good example of a safety issue not being completed and worse still CASA being part of the
failings. Current vehicle safety issues have not been completed with a paper trail over years.

There are many more examples that, if needed, I would be happy to provide or clarify further if requested.

I have tried to keep my submission simple and have used examples that should quickly show what the Senate was
being told hasn’t been factual. I have left CASA failings and examples out of my submission; however, they are a
large part of the current problems and must change to be a real regulator with up to date standards for AS/ARFF to
go forward. CASA standards are well overdue for a full review and rewrite to bring things in line with current
international standards and recommendations.

Thanks again for the opportunity to provide my submission and I am happy to provide further details by any means.

Regards


John Hancox

LAFF. Brisbane

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

AIPA prez & comments in the Oz -   

Via the Oz:

Careers in aviation industry losing appeal as training costs soar
- MARK SEDGWICK
·        12:00AM APRIL 26, 2019
·        45 COMMENTS

Aviation should be an attractive industry for young Australians to join. Aspiring pilots should be able to look forward to a rewarding ­career, including making a decent return on the significant upfront investment required to fund their flying training.

And yet the number of Australians learning to fly continues to drop. Globally, airlines are growing at a faster pace than ever but the number of qualified pilots with the experience to fly large commercial passenger aircraft isn’t keeping up with demand.

Forecasts suggest the US airline industry will need an additional 50,000 pilots by 2026 in order to cater for retirements, attrition and growth. So far, the shortage of US pilots has provided an opportunity for some young Australians to find work with US regional airlines.

There they can gain experience and increase their flying hours to allow them to move to a major international carrier or perhaps return home to Australia to work.

US pilot unions say they are not opposed to foreign pilots joining regional airlines as long as they are paid on the same terms and conditions as American pilots.

Likewise in Australia, there has been a fear that even the limited use of foreign pilots could be used to lower the terms and conditions of employment in aviation.

There is a systemic issue here. Young pilots cannot be mentored and trained without experienced pilots and you cannot retain experienced pilots without competitive salaries, terms and conditions.

It’s clear the aviation industry needs co-ordinated government support with better targeted programs for training and wider support for regional aviation.

Last year the government was lobbied to reinstate employment visa privileges for foreign pilots, having previously removed them from the skilled occupation list in 2017. However, the lure of permanent Australian residency as an incentive to an employment contract should not be used to replace adequate employment terms and conditions. The aim should be to attract and retain Australians.

At the same time there is a need for government to consider the air transport needs of the bush. Regional and rural operators are under increasing cost pressures and the industry needs government assistance to ensure air services continue. That should include efforts to reduce industry costs including pilot training.

Qantas and Virgin Australia understand they could be facing future pilot shortages, announcing their own pilot academies in Toowoomba and Tamworth. The regional carriers have had similar programs for some years now.

Yet there is no co-ordinated approach to these training programs even where the regional and main line carriers are both owned by the same parent company. By training pilots and employing them at the outset in the airlines’ respective regional operations and providing a pathway through to progressively larger aircraft, the major local players would benefit from a “cradle to grave” approach that should aid significantly in pilot retention.

What pilots want to see is better government support for flying training and recognition that aviation is a major artery of regional Australia that needs a more co-­ordinated approach. Without a ­viable regional aviation industry, Australia could see even more young pilots leaving the country for better opportunities overseas.
Mark Sedgwick is president of the Australian and International Pilots Association.

---

---

arlys

It might do well, for all to remember 89. Without Pilots, this country slowly grinds to a halt. Business goes broke, so do resorts, caterers, mail,  newspapers, fuel providers, airline staff, taxis, and Uber, transport trucks, medical supplies, and on it goes. Our country is just to big, to survive without aircraft. No pilot wants to destroy his/her country, we all saw the pain that came from 89, so it’s essential to get this fixed, Australian Pilots, for Australian Airlines and GA, and help for future Australian youngsters to get into the business, with assistance from the Govt. If you help Uni students with finance to get a degree, then you can help young pilots, to get on the flight deck.  The country depends on it.

---

Ben

An industry ripe for disruption

---

Peter

We dont need more input from the government. Casa has already destroyed the general aviation breeding pool of excellence and experience in pilot traiming through self serving over regulation. We dont need career trained airline pilots at the pointy end, we need pilots who actually know how to fly.

---

Niels

Sadly, technology has long overcome the need for pilots needing to know how to fly. Automation has largely killed this off.

---

John

The problem is caused by the regulations imposed on GA and the large cost of learning to fly and GA in general .

---

Gregg

What pilots want to see is better government support for flying training
As long as that Government support involves better visa provisions which support the industry and not government funding. Taxpayers shouldn't have to pay anything for this. Getting into a flying job has always been a hard slog that initially pays stuff all, in large part driven by the fun of it i.e. you can accept a low wage if the job is brilliant and there are heaps of others out there who will do it for that wage if you don't. Plus there is a chance of huge salaries later if things go well. I remember while flying a cross-country navex the young instructor looked down and told me he was working on that rural highway below us the day previous....doing what I asked...lollipop man he said. And then there was the small training school Chief Pilot quitting (thereby cancelling my scheduled training flight), moving to WA and boasting about a much better paid job he had landed which paid $60K.

---

Steve M

I began flying training in 1994, and completed the theory phase at TAFE in 1996 for my commercial pilots licence. Unfortunately due to the high cost of accumulating hours I had to give up on my dream. No bank would loan me money to pay for hours and no family to back me. The Only options were airlines where I didn’t meet their requirements but used to tutor a lot of their candidates for cash. I would so love to work in aviation, I have spent now close to 20 years in a career that I hate. I still would like to be able to eat however.    

---

Jim

Much of the problem lies with the bureaucracy . The traditional path for  jet airline pilots was via General Aviation flying freight and charter work often for small regional operations . Certainly the work was hard ,pay not particularly good and often with an element of risk .This worked both ways for employer and employee . The business remained viable and the young pilot got their experience. Increasing regulation and the related costs is making the businesses that have provided the industry's base unviable.

The sad thing is that the flying schools now replacing the traditional route will never be able to provide the seat of the pants experience that is needed to make true airmanship , the sort that is needed when the computer aided flight deck fails . The irony is the bureaucratic push for safety for small operations potentially takes away safety in the large operations because of under trained pilots.

---

Grant

The re-introduction of cadet programs should be a priority. I am surprised however that there is not a single mention of Engineers in this article... CASA has destroyed the AME training pipeline and have no idea how to fix it. There answer was to recognise foreign licences and let them in to take what should have been Australian jobs. Meanwhile operators like QANTAS continue to offshore their maintenance at a cost to safety.

---

Peter

Casa destroyed engineering as a rewarding lifelong career by dumb skilling the qualification. Its now a pretty poor industry to be a victim of.

---

arlys

Not just Pilots, but Engineers. Neither can work without the other. Australian Aircraft Engineers are coveted by foreign airlines, because of their high standards, as are Pilots, which makes it sometimes hard to retain the best of the best.   Both need to be trained by airlines, both should be on bonds, to keep them retained. The days of pilfering from the RAAF are over, as they are bonded as well. Flying Training is extremely expensive, and often parents have to remortgage, their homes, to get their budding Aviator off the ground, with no guarantee at the end of it. Flying Schools are closing due to ridiculous rules set by CASA,  so the whole thing needs investigation re both Pilots and Engineers, as without either, we ain’t going nowhere.

---

Damien

Not much point going to the airforce, most aircraft trades are supplied by civilian contractors with minimal training.


DJD

---

Botswana O'Hooligan

Why would anyone be so silly to spend in excess of 100K, much more in some cases, and then work for years on a pittance of a salary for some operator who may or may not be shonky and then if extremely lucky get a job with an airline whereby he/she has to pay for their own endorsement on a Boeing or an Airbus and then start on a salary of about 40K?  Most pilots aren't that lucky and wind up working for small operators instead of spending that 100K on a decent Uni degree or apprenticeship, getting a decent salary when qualified and be home most nights.

---

Peter

I totally agree.

---

Richard

Or, join the CFMEU...

---

JELG

Aviation in America is seen as an integral part of the US business economy and is supported and encouraged as such.   The runway is considered one of the most important streets in town.  Here it is rich men's toys.   35 years ago I abandoned Australia for flying training and moved to the States, eventually flying as a Captain for Delta.  America is half the price with many times the opportunities.
 
Aviation does not need more government involvment.  It needs less.  

The Australian aviation industry is so overmanaged and regulated and convoluted and therefore expensive it is breathtaking in comparison to the US.

Build (or at least maintain)  infrastructure, and let aviation businesses run their own show.

This country is MADE for aviation.  The distances are huge, the weather great and the facilities, at least used to be, fantstic.  

---

Chris

Aviation Industry is much more than pilots and it is in these other areas that Australia is very much lacking.  In too many categories we have priced ourselves out of the market; major maintenance is sent overseas, not coming from overseas to Australia.

Our costs have risen such that the viable industry is becoming a shell.  The small 'pocket' jobs in the inland and regional sectors have gone.  Pilots are still recruited to a limited extent by the big airlines but all the other foundation aviation positions are disappearing.

---

David

Australia opted for a high wage high cost economy, however that was back in the days when we had cheap energy, hardly any on costs such as superannuation, payroll taxes and a myriad of other hidden government imposed costs and hence we had tariffs to protect us from the outside world. Things have changed dramatically from those days we still still have an expectation that we should get more and more for less effort and we are governed with the mentality that we are not in a globalised world, eventually things will change as we go further down the cost gurgler  believe me the high wage high cost economy that we live in will have to adapt to a lower wage lower cost economy eventually.

---

Josh

Well it was CASA that destroyed pilot training in Australia - Just another useless incompetent waste of taxpayer dollars overpaid public service department to the collection.

---

Botswana O'Hooligan

Yairs, CASA should shoulder a bit of the blame, about 110% or 120% of it. A bloke who practiced as a solicitor and is also an airline captain opined that the CAO's and CAR's are written in legal speak that even he has trouble deciphering so what chance does an ordinary aviator have, or more to the point, a clerk in CASA who has no legal training.

---

Kevin

Also, when I started flying in the 1980's the CAR's were an A5 book of less than 200 pages. The CARs, CASRs and CAOs are now a small library.

---

Garry

All cost plus business is inefficient. Could you imagine an Airline having a Stand down where at Christmas all the employees , like in CASA, get to stay home on full pay and not have any Leave deducted.

---

Michael

The aviation industry is not just pilots. It does include maintenance engineers and other people required to make it viable. No incentive or encouragement there either.

---

Juliette

True, and the maintenance engineer situation is just as dire.

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

AusALPA bemused by Harfwit E over D proposal - 

By LMH, via the Yaffa:

• 
  

Airline Pilots set to object to E over D Proposal
1 May 2019
Comments 0 Comments
    
The representative body of regular public transport pilots is likely to object to Airservices Australia's proposal to introduce Class E airspace over Class D towered airports.

This week, the Australian Airline Pilots Association (AusALPA) distributed an e-mail to various aviation groups stating that they were surprised that Airservices' reintroduced the concept to the Airspace Moderisation Program despite strenuous objections forwarded nearly a year ago.

In May 2018, AusALPA sent a submission to Airservices Australia responding to the proposal to trial Class E over D at Hobart and Launceston airports. In the submission, AusALPA stated that the changes would degrade rather than enhance safety.

"AusALPA ... views the proposal as a degradation of the airspace rather than an enhancement," the submission said. "We also question what problem this redesign of the airspace is aimed at solving, since we are unable to identify any safety or operational benefits for our members.
"Consequently, AusALPA considers that there is no justification for the airspace reclassification for trial purposes or otherwise."

In Class E airspace, IFR flights require an airways clearance, but VFR pilots do not, which means RPT flights into Class D towers need to rely on the see-and-avoid method of self-separation until they reach the Class D boundary. Currently, the airspace over Class D is Class C, which gives IFR flights protection all the way to the ground.

"The approach and departure phases of flight are relatively high workload phases of flight," AusALPA told Airservices last year. "Class E airspace increases the need to utilise ‘see and avoid’ measures when compared to that of Class C or D airspace.

"This is particularly problematic on descent where small aircraft can be almost impossible to visually detect due an array of ground clutter masking the ability to sight an aircraft."

It is believed that AusALPA will meet to form another response to the Airspace Modernisation Program that will closely reflect the feedback they provided last year.

Feedback to the Airspace Modernisation Program can be submitted on the Airservices Australia website.


Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/lates...e0v3Q05.99

Reference quote from 8 May 2018 AusALPA response to ASA - 'TRIAL OF CLASS E AIRSPACE SERVICES AT HOBART AND LAUNCESTON AIRPORTS': https://ausalpa.memnet.com.au/Portals/5/...135400-690

CONCLUDING REMARKS

AusALPA remains unconvinced that this proposal is necessary, that it has been sufficiently risk modelled, and that it will provide efficiencies in any meaningful manner.

AusALPA strongly believes that the proposed reclassification of the airspace would result in a reduction of safety protections and an increase in pilot workload, whilst providing no real net savings in efficiencies.

Given that IFR traffic must be provided with a controlled airspace service in either airspace classification, that VFR traffic has the option of accessing the current airspace through a clearance request and that there is no demonstrated need to free up the airspace for greater VFR traffic use without clearances, it is unclear to AusALPA why there is any requirement to change the airspace classification in Tasmania. This is supported by the OAR review.

AusALPA believes that this proposal will result in a degradation of safety rather than an enhancement without any significant operational efficiencies.

AusALPA, therefore, strongly opposes this proposal.

Call me cynical but have you ever noticed how these fat cat bureaucrats suddenly come up with these money grubbing aviation safety downgrade proposals when the pollywaffles are otherwise distracted - note the consultation period ends less than a week after the 18th of May Federal election - ie no parliamentary scrutiny??    


MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

AusALPA bemused by Harfwit E over D proposal - 

By LMH, via the Yaffa:

• 
  

Airline Pilots set to object to E over D Proposal
1 May 2019
Comments 0 Comments
    
The representative body of regular public transport pilots is likely to object to Airservices Australia's proposal to introduce Class E airspace over Class D towered airports.

This week, the Australian Airline Pilots Association (AusALPA) distributed an e-mail to various aviation groups stating that they were surprised that Airservices' reintroduced the concept to the Airspace Moderisation Program despite strenuous objections forwarded nearly a year ago.

In May 2018, AusALPA sent a submission to Airservices Australia responding to the proposal to trial Class E over D at Hobart and Launceston airports. In the submission, AusALPA stated that the changes would degrade rather than enhance safety.

"AusALPA ... views the proposal as a degradation of the airspace rather than an enhancement," the submission said. "We also question what problem this redesign of the airspace is aimed at solving, since we are unable to identify any safety or operational benefits for our members.
"Consequently, AusALPA considers that there is no justification for the airspace reclassification for trial purposes or otherwise."

In Class E airspace, IFR flights require an airways clearance, but VFR pilots do not, which means RPT flights into Class D towers need to rely on the see-and-avoid method of self-separation until they reach the Class D boundary. Currently, the airspace over Class D is Class C, which gives IFR flights protection all the way to the ground.

"The approach and departure phases of flight are relatively high workload phases of flight," AusALPA told Airservices last year. "Class E airspace increases the need to utilise ‘see and avoid’ measures when compared to that of Class C or D airspace.

"This is particularly problematic on descent where small aircraft can be almost impossible to visually detect due an array of ground clutter masking the ability to sight an aircraft."

It is believed that AusALPA will meet to form another response to the Airspace Modernisation Program that will closely reflect the feedback they provided last year.

Feedback to the Airspace Modernisation Program can be submitted on the Airservices Australia website.


Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/lates...e0v3Q05.99

Reference quote from 8 May 2018 AusALPA response to ASA - 'TRIAL OF CLASS E AIRSPACE SERVICES AT HOBART AND LAUNCESTON AIRPORTS': https://ausalpa.memnet.com.au/Portals/5/...135400-690

CONCLUDING REMARKS

AusALPA remains unconvinced that this proposal is necessary, that it has been sufficiently risk modelled, and that it will provide efficiencies in any meaningful manner.

AusALPA strongly believes that the proposed reclassification of the airspace would result in a reduction of safety protections and an increase in pilot workload, whilst providing no real net savings in efficiencies.

Given that IFR traffic must be provided with a controlled airspace service in either airspace classification, that VFR traffic has the option of accessing the current airspace through a clearance request and that there is no demonstrated need to free up the airspace for greater VFR traffic use without clearances, it is unclear to AusALPA why there is any requirement to change the airspace classification in Tasmania. This is supported by the OAR review.

AusALPA believes that this proposal will result in a degradation of safety rather than an enhancement without any significant operational efficiencies.

AusALPA, therefore, strongly opposes this proposal.

Call me cynical but have you ever noticed how these fat cat bureaucrats suddenly come up with these money grubbing aviation safety downgrade proposals when the pollywaffles are otherwise distracted - note the consultation period ends less than a week after the 18th of May Federal election - ie no parliamentary scrutiny??    

Hmm...passing strange??

Over on Twitter, in response to the E over D proposal, Noodle shared the following: 

Noodle
@fishonoodle

Replying to @PAIN_NET1 @aipa_pilots and 2 others

https://www.casa.gov.au/sites/default/fi...y-2019.pdf … ........almost magician like.......no change said the regulator....some one telling some one porkies

11:45 AM - 2 May 2019

OAR report quotes:

...The review found that there is no risk-based requirement to change the airspace classification at Launceston. The OAR has determined that the current airspace classification is fit for purpose2 and recommends no change to the classification. The airspace provides a safe and equitable level of access for users within the airspace. This is based upon the analysis of safety and incident data, consultation with stakeholders and the breakdown of annual aircraft and passenger movement statistics within the review area...

2 ‘fit for purpose’ means that the product or service is satisfactory for the purpose it was designed for. 

Recommendation 1 The OAR recommends no change to the airspace classification at
Launceston.

---

...The review found that the existing airspace is fit for purpose and the complies with the requirements of the Act for safe operations and enables equitable access to that airspace for all users of the airspace. The review identified that further examination of the current airspace design undertaken that may provide benefits for aircraft operations in controlled airspace.

The review made four recommendations including no change to the current airspace classification. An observation was made for the OAR to investigate the information received in relation to aircraft containment within controlled airspace whilst conducting continuous descent operations with regard to the airspace design at Launceston...

Nail on the head Noodle, someone indeed is telling porkies -   



MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

TAAAF policy 2019??

Via the LMH:

TAAAF Policy calls for CASA Reform
10 May 2019
Comments 0 Comments
    
The Australian Aviation Associations Forum (TAAAF) has called for substantial reform of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) through a major review of the Civil Aviation Act 1988.

The call came in the 2019 TAAAF policy released yesterday in the lead-up to the 18 May Federal Election. The policy is signed by TAAAF chair and former CASA Chairman Jeff Boyd, and TAAAF executives Paul Tyrrell from the Australian Helicopter Industry Association and Michael Monck from Recreational Aviation Australia.

"This policy is aimed directly at strengthening and improving the operational and strategic output of the regulator so that it is more effective and efficient while still remaining focussed on continual improvement in safety and risk management," the policy states.

"While there are many other issues relevant to aviation policy, the primary focus should remain on ensuring CASAs
commitment to modernise and innovate in order to deliver safe and pragmatic objectives through prudent and responsible management while not obstructing the industry’s efforts to do the same."

TAAAF wants to see the lapsed Civil Aviation Amendment Bill re-introduced to parliament with amendments that bring about legislative changes to CASA. Those changes include:

• Amendments that address safety issues and High Court challenges to the primacy of the Civil Aviation Act
  
• addition of cost and sector risk approaches
  
• CASA board to have full powers over strategy, operation and administration
  
• CASA board to be comprised of people with relevant and significant aviation experience
  
• Director of Aviation Safety (DAS) to be ex-officio member of the board
  
• revision of CEO/DAS position to increase accountability to the board
  
• establishing formal consultation with peak aviation bodies.
  

The  TAAAF policy also outlines structural changes to CASA that the forum believes are necessary to reflect aviation industry expectations, such as removing internal bottlenecks, fair and equitable decision-making and consistency across regional offices.

"Action is required to ensure that industry requirements are met in a timely manner in accordance with published service delivery targets," TAAAF states. "Consistent delays in delivery of regular items (medicals, licence processing, etc.) along with regulatory reform, consultation, investigations and other CASA responsibilities create uncertainty for industry and constrain investment."

Other actions outlined in the policy include an improved approach to sector risk management, a recruitment policy based on experience and knowledge that fosters a culture of competency, consultation and co-operation; an aviation training initiative that aligns training with desired outcomes and a continuous improvement program for CASA.

TAAAF is an industry forum with 13 member groups representing 12,500 individuals and companies from all sectors of aviation in Australia. It reviews and releases its aviation policy just prior to each Federal Election.

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

 Err... no comment -   


MTF...P2 

[Kharon]

Credibility; or

Believe it if you like.

Seems great at first don’t it, that is if you don’t spend more than two minutes thinking it through – which you must.

Consider two things Time and Benefit. Consider the time gift TAAAF are offering CASA and who will benefit most from that time allowance. Then, take a break and consider who is presenting this ‘call for reform’ and why.

Let us take a short look at the gift of time the TAAAF policy allows CASA, it is a gift from either the gods in heaven or, their mates on earth. Either way it only benefits one group and it ain’t the industry, which is dying on it feet.

How long do you imagine it will take for this:-

“TAAAF wants to see the lapsed Civil Aviation Amendment Bill re-introduced to parliament with amendments that bring about legislative changes to CASA.”

- to actually happen, how long do you imagine it will take to get through the hoops and, at the end of the shift, what do you imagine the result to be? Then take a close look at the TAAAF wish list:-

•  Amendments that address safety issues and High Court challenges to the primacy of the Civil Aviation Act
•  addition of cost and sector risk approaches
•  CASA board to have full powers over strategy, operation and administration
•  CASA board to be comprised of people with relevant and significant aviation experience
•  Director of Aviation Safety (DAS) to be ex-officio member of the board
•  revision of CEO/DAS position to increase accountability to the board
•  establishing formal consultation with peak aviation bodies.

Dontcha know - Santa Claus is an old family friend, I often pick up the Easter Bunny and give him a lift aback my magical Elephant to the North Pole where we help the Elves sort out Santa’s Christmas mail into piles of can do, will do, and mission impossible. I can’t wait to see which pile Boyd’s version of Oliver Twist’s polite request ends up in.

“How we live is so different from how we ought to live that he who studies what ought to be done rather than what is done will learn the way to his downfall rather than to his preservation.”

Toot - MTF – toot.

[Peetwo]

Pilot unions call for Govt aviation policy reset- 

Via the Oz Friday:

Pilots keen for aviation policy certainty

When operating smoothly, the aviation industry largely remains outside the political limelight.

This was certainly the case at the recent federal election. While Labor re-articulated its policy agenda for aviation, the Liberal National Coalition policy platform on aviation was not substantially updated from what was released before the 2013 election.

With the election complete and priorities now being set for the upcoming parliamentary term, this important industry deserves a review of the overarching framework within which it operates. The last National Aviation Policy white paper, published a decade ago, is long overdue for an update.

The Morrison government should make it a priority to review the current policy approach, particularly given the substantial policy areas that have arisen since it was completed.

For pilots, there are a number of issues that we would like to see prioritised. Better engagement with all stakeholders by a well-resourced regulator is essential.

This should include ensuring the board and key representatives have appropriate aviation expertise. Ensuring pilot representative associations have a voice at the policy level is also vital, and we believe the addition of pilot representation on the Aviation Safety Advisory Panel at CASA is long overdue.

Likewise, there is a need to ensure airport precincts are prioritised for aviation activity. That means protecting airspace from construction activities that infringe airspace tolerances or unduly disturb air flows on approach paths around airports.

The flying of passengers within Australia — from one Australian airport to another — should continue to occur under Australian employment laws. Existing rules on aviation cabotage must be confirmed as non-negotiable.

Action should also be taken to address the challenges facing women in aviation and we would urge the federal government to share our commitment to promoting the advancement of women throughout the industry.

The one area of significant disagreement between both sides of politics is on energy and carbon-related policy areas.

The challenge remains to find common ground on how we balance the effects of establishing longer-term carbon and energy-related policies, particularly in light of global targets for our relative emissions footprint, against national and individual economic interests. Responsible approaches are required to maintain aviation jobs and investment while also addressing the growing community demand for clear policy direction.

Globally, the aviation industry is committed to carbon offset and reduction schemes. Major aircraft and engine manufacturers are looking ahead to increasing fuel efficiency using current technology and, in the longer term, alternative options such as hybrid-electric propulsion, biofuel and other fuel substitutes.

The International Federation of Airline Pilots Association’s position is that a viable and expanding air transport industry can only be achieved on sustainable grounds. However, every solution for environmental benefit must be weighed according to technological and operational feasibility, economic reason and environmental benefit, with safety never to be affected negatively.

The larger industry players in Australia have been committed for some time to sustainable practices and for finding more ways to reduce and offset their carbon footprint. For now, airlines and aviation businesses in Australia are getting on with addressing the questions around sustainability, but the challenge remains for Canberra to determine the political way forward.

Mark Sedgwick is president of the Australian and International Pilots Association.

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

REX solemn loyalty vow falls a foul of the Feds - 

It would seem that the beloved airline of the Nats REX (for all the wrong reasons) can't stay out of the news??

From Ironsider, via the Oz:

Rex letter to cadet pilots lands in court


July 17, 2019

Aviation


Legal action over a letter sent by Regional Express (Rex) airlines to prospective cadet pilots will finally be heard by the Federal Circuit Court today, five years after it was originally filed.

The Australian Federation of Air Pilots applied to the court in September 2014 for penalty order­s against Rex after the airline sought to make cadet pilots agree to stay at cheap accommod­ation and remain with the company for at least seven years.

“For us at Rex, pure technical skills alone are not enough,” said the letter.

“We are looking for cadets who will acknowledge the privil­ege of this life-changing opportunity and commit to paying back to the company by being fiercely loyal and company-minded and by going above and beyond the call of duty especially in times of need by the company.”

The letter went on to highlight the example of cadets choosing to stay at a local motel rather than more basic accommodation during­ simulator training, at a cost to the company of an extra $100 a night.

“You should be aware that the Rex Group considers such cadets to be totally lacking in integrity and the Rex Group will not allow any pilot lacking in integrity to hold a command.”

Recipients were then asked to reply with a handwritten letter includ­ing a “solemn promise to give back to the company by volun­teering to undertake various­ activities and actions”.

According to the AFAP, the letter constituted “adverse act­ion, coercion and misrepre­sen­tation under the Fair Work Act, and should be retracted with Rex ordered­ to pay civil penalties”.

In response, Rex applied to the Federal Circuit Court to have the AFAP-brought action dismissed on the grounds the federation could not represent people who were not actual members.

When the application was rejected­, Rex appealed to a full bench of the Federal Court only to lose again, leaving the High Court as its last resort.

In its ruling in December 2017, the High Court upheld the ­Federal Court’s finding that an industr­ial organisation registered under the Fair Work Act was entitle­d to represent the interests of a person who was eligible for membership but was not a member­.

The matter has been set down for hearing in the Federal Circuit Court in Melbourne for three days from today before judge Karl Blake.

A spokeswoman for the AFAP said the federation was relieved the case was finally going to be heard.

Rex did not respond to questions from The Australian. The reg­ional carrier has faced intense scrutiny in recent weeks after engin­eers raised concerns with the Civil Aviation Safety Authority about a “poor safety culture”.

CASA has since cleared the airline after a two-day inspection of the airline’s Wagga Wagga maintenance depot.

 
Also in the Alphabet news...

Via Oz Flying:

Sport Aircraft Association out of Part 149
18 July 2019
    
The Sport Aircraft Association of Australia (SAAA) will not become an Approved Self-administration Aviation Organisation (ASAO) under the new CASR Part 149 that took effect this week.

Part 149 is a new ruleset that covers the functions of organisations that seek to administer specific sectors of aviation such as Recreational Aviation Australia (RAAus), the Gliding Federation of Australia (GFA) or the Australian Parachute Federation (APF).

Part 149 aims to eliminate all the exemptions granted to ASAOs over the past 60 years and instead replace them with approvals to operate that recognise the associations as administrators for the sector.

Up until this week, the SAAA was considering applying for an ASAO approval, but a note from CASA made it clear that the SAAA would gain no advantage from going through the process.

In an announcement made to members, the SAAA said they would not pursue Part 149 approval for "the foreseeable future."

"This follows a communication to SAAA from CASA on 2nd July 2019 '..as Part 149 does not contain any functions that SAAA would administer, it would subsequently not be possible for the SAAA to transition from its current role to becoming an Approved Self-administering Aviation Organisation (ASAO) under Part 149.' This is of course in the context of Part 149 and the related Manual of Standards as they presently exist."

SAAA was one of nine Australian sport aviation organisations working with CASA on Part 149, but has said it was concerned over the relevance of the new regulation to members.

"SAAA has ... been especially concerned over many issues, the most significant of which have been around:

• transfer of regulatory responsibilities from CASA to SAOs with no attendant transfer of funding
  
• the imposition of strict liability provisions
  
• the understanding that SAAA members’ current exemptions would at best be frozen in time if SAAA did not migrate to Part 149, thus hindering opportunities for further development of safety outcome improvements
  
• the fate of VH EAB [VH-registered Experimental Amateur-built] aircraft and their pilots was unknown.
  

"SAAA remains unconvinced of the merits of Part 149 being relevant to or able to offer improved safety outcomes for the Australian VH EAB fleet and its pilots."

CASA administers aircraft registration, airworthiness, licensing and medicals for EAB aircraft regardless of whether or not the owners and pilots are members of SAAA. The SAAA focuses on helping members comply with the Civil Aviation Act 1988 and providing education as a way of improving safety for home-built aircraft.

"SAAA, now continuing its operations outside of the Part 149 environment, looks forward to working with CASA as it has done in the past to deliver further safety outcome improvements to its Members and the VH EAB fleet and pilots generally," the announcement said.

More information on CASR Part 149 is on the CASA website.

Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/lates...p61rqJB.99

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

Time for industry to grow a set! - 

Courtesy Ben Wyndham, via AOPA Oz Charter Ops FB page: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=...ater&ifg=1

Ben Wyndham

Yesterday at 10:23 AM

As someone else said we have a cultural problem in Australia. We don't have rights - we are granted privileges.

One of our privileges (which can be withdrawn) is permission to contact the bureaucracy on some matters.

In the US you have rights, government officials want to  help you use them, promote commerce and view you as a customer they are  honoured to serve.

I say to all of you - we must start to stand up as an  industry. Because we are quiet (for fear of offending the Sky Gods) they  continue to win.

I would like to start a General Aviation public  awareness campaign. It would rely upon all of you permitting a video guy  to work with you shooting remote community work, quick interviews with  your pax and clients ("GA is important to Kalumburu because it brings  the Doktah and the Sistah for my Mum..." )

Lots of heartstrings stuff. GA serves Australia's beating heart.

Only when the Australian Public knows what will we do
will they object that the government is killing us off.

Great idea - so let's make it happen...

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

RUFDUS feel the pinch on pilot shortage - 

Via the Oz:

---

Flying Doctors ramp up pilot program

MEREDITH STAIB


The Royal Flying Doctors Service has developed a pilot mentoring program.

• 12:00AM AUGUST 23, 2019
  
  
  
• 1 COMMENT
  

If you think the only inconvenience of the global pilot shortage will be a possible delay or cancellation of your next international or domestic flight, you’re wrong.


Consider the reality of being seriously injured or ill in an isol­ated part of the Australian outback. Right now, it’s possible for the Royal Flying Doctor Service to be with you within two hours, ­regardless of where you are.
Without pilots, we cannot.

Up until now, most media focus on the global pilot shortage has been on larger, commercial airlines, and rightly so. The figures are alarming from a business and global travel standpoint — 290,000 active pilots service the aviation needs of the global population, and Boeing alarmingly predicts the need for a further 261,000 in the Asia-Pacific during the next 20 years to meet ­demand from emerging markets primarily in India and China.

It is also these same markets from which most Australian pilots are headhunted for commercial pilot roles.

The stark truth is, as a charity, we cannot compete with some of the salaries on offer.

That isn’t to say we cannot offer our pilots ­decent salaries and truly rewarding and exciting careers in aviation, but combining slightly reduced wages with the prospect of living remotely has always presented obstacles to recruitment, whether a shortage of suitable candidates exists or not.

The fact is, aeromedical and general aviation are not quarantined from the pilot shortage.

We recruit from the same three sectors of aviation as the big commercial airlines: regional airlines, general aviation and defence.

And so long as these three areas suffer, so do we — unless we shift the way in which we operate our pilot recruitment and retention.

I hold a firm belief that everyone involved in the aviation industry has an obligation to give back. Everyone must play their part by harbouring and ­encouraging young and upcoming pilots.

During the past six months, the RFDS in Queensland has actively positioned workforce sustainability at the forefront of our operations. In doing so, we have looked for the pilots who already have an affinity with the bush, who share our passion and purpose, and recruited these people into a newly developing RFDS Aircrew Mentoring Program, or RAMP.

RAMP takes young, experienced general aviation pilots from rural Queensland who may just fall short of the required flying hours to be an RFDS pilot and equips them with a 12 to 18-month sponsored induction and mentorship. In return, we expect a three to five-year period of service as an RFDS pilot once they meet the ­required standard and are checked to line.

Training pilots is not cheap, and RAMP is not a large-scale program in which we take on great numbers of pilots and train them en masse.

That is not feasible or sustainable for a not-for-profit organisation such as ours. We are limited to about two RAMP pilots each year whose training and mentorship is philanthropically funded.

Realistically, the RFDS is only a small player in the global aviation market.

But our impact on individuals and communities in Australia is undeniably huge.

And while we don’t have the resources to develop national pilot training academies, we can play our part by introducing incremental innovations to our training and recruitment efforts, to ensure we are future-proofing our business and continuing to provide a world-class aeromedical service.

Meredith Staib is chief executive of the Royal Flying Doctor Service (Queensland).

---

Plus: Fort Fumble release latest iteration of 80+ page CAO 48.1 - 

Link: https://www.casa.gov.au/safety-managemen...management

From Ironsider this am, via the Oz:

New pilot fatigue rules finalised



Commercial airline pilots can look forward to slightly shorter workdays under new fatigue risk management rules being introduced by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority.

After years of review and consultation, CASA has finalised a new set of rules and promised to survey the regulations at regular intervals to ensure their ongoing relevance.

Australian Federation of Air Pilots safety and technical director Stuart Beveridge said there were still some concerns that commercial considerations had been favoured over the wellbeing of pilots but they could “live with” the new rules.

“Currently pilots working under the standard industry exemptions can work up to 12 hours if they sign on before 5am,” Mr Beveridge said. “Under the new rules, that will be reduced to 10 hours.

“Some (daily flying) limits have been reduced by about two hours, others have only been reduced by half an hour depending on the time of day and number of flights they’re doing.”

He said two big “blind spots” persisted in the fatigue risk management rules, which would not apply to aerial agricultural pilots.

“CASA has decided because there’s no risk to the travelling public they don’t need to be ­included.

“Our position is the pilot’s life is still at stake and it’s also one of the riskiest sectors of the industry, that’s subject to considerable cost pressures,” Mr Beveridge said. The other blind spot related to emergency services, with exemptions in fatigue risk management granted to “urgent” operations also extending to non-urgent patient transfers.

“With one, it’s a matter of life and death but the other is not, so we believe those operations should be compliant with fatigue risk management rules,” Mr Beveridge said.

Australian and International Pilots Association vice-president Shane Loney said they shared AFAP’s concern about the emphasis on industry priorities ahead of safety.

“These regulations are very much leaving things to operators as to how they run their fatigue systems,” Captain Loney said.

That included ultra-long range operations such as those being considered by Qantas, with the new CASA rules failing to include any mention of such services.

“In our view the regulation should include specific mention of ULR and some particular requirements of CASA for an operator to demonstrate how they will safely conduct those flights,” said Captain Loney.

“That’s not written up in regulation anywhere so it leaves it entirely up to operators how it works on the day.”

Despite the omission, Captain Loney said AIPA supported Qantas’s research flights later this year designed to examine scientifically the impact on pilots of 20-plus hours of flying.

Airlines must transition to the new rules by June 30 next year.

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

Pilot's concern for changes to the Act

From Ironsider, via the Oz:

Pilots fear new laws put money ahead of safety



Some argue new rules advantage big airlines over general aviation operations. Picture: iStock

• ROBYN IRONSIDE
  AVIATION WRITER
  @ironsider
  
• 12:09AM SEPTEMBER 20, 2019
  
• 4 COMMENTS
  

Pilots are making a last-ditch bid to change the path of new civil aviation laws being debated in federal parliament to ensure cost considerations don’t come ahead of safety.

The Civil Aviation Amendment bill has been listed for debate in the House of Representatives this week after being passed by the Senate.

The legislation has bipartisan support and seeks to strike a balance between risk and regulation.

Deputy Prime Minister Michael McCormack said the legislation would ensure the Civil Aviation Safety Authority considered the economic impact on aircraft operators and communities when developing legislative aviation safety standards.

But the Australian Federation of Air Pilots’ safety and technical director, Stuart Beveridge, said members were concerned they were not consulted on the changes.

“CASA needs to consider three things when formulating aviation regulation — risk, cost and a system of safety,” Mr Beveridge said.

“We need all three of those elements to form an adequate regulatory framework and we don’t think this bill gives enough weight to aviation as a system of safety.” He said the apparent oversight by the federal government was like “leaving the wheel off an aeroplane”.

“The other two wheels still work but you need the third wheel for the whole system to run successfully,” Mr Beveridge said.

Aviation veteran and former CASA chairman Dick Smith also expressed his concerns about the bill which he said would disadvantage general aviation and favour large airlines.

Mr Beveridge said AFAP would call for the appropriate Senate committee to review the legislation as soon as it passed.

“Essentially we realise that the chances of an amendment at this late stage are zero but what we would like to see is a commitment to a review and we would also like a much stronger ministerial directive from the Transport Minister (Mr McCormack), in terms of taking into account systemic safety considerations as well as cost and risk,” he said.

Pilots feared the legislation could have immediate implications given the shift to new fatigue risk management regulations.

“If it is written in legislation that CASA can’t impose costs ever on the industry, than we’re in a much more difficult position to have meaningful change to improve safety like fatigue,” he said.

---

Argus

13 HOURS AGO
(Edited)
Speaking personally, I have never been happy about listening to squealing from the individuals or groups impacted by legislative or regulatory change. As a passenger who has been watching the regulatory failure of the 737Max as a consequence of accreditation being dominated by industry pressures rather than independent regulators. I am much more comfortable with an independent regulator setting standards for public health and safety and requiring the industry to comply.

And in reply to Argus...

David

2 HOURS AGO

So long as that regulator doesn’t cause the eradication of one sector such as general aviation in Australia, which at the moment CASA seems determined to achieve

Personally I think the current proposed changes to the Act are all 'fluff with no puff' but if the knock on effect is to lead to real reform then bring it on quickly before the industry really goes tits up...  


MTF...P2  

[Peetwo]

Alan Joyce and Paul Scurrah NPC address: 18/09/19

Just catching up but if you have an interest in the Oz Aviation industry this is definitely worth the time to watch...  

Alan Joyce and Paul Scurrah

An historic joint address by the CEOs of Australia's major domestic airlines. Qantas CEO Alan Joyce and Virgin Australia CEO Paul Scurrah highlight the contribution airlines make to the Australian economy.

Share
Broadcast 12:30pm Wed 18 Sep 2019. Published 3 days ago, available until 1:30pm on 18 Oct 2019.

Ref: https://iview.abc.net.au/show/national-p...ub-address

 
And the AFR's summary:

Airport profits 'out of kilter', say Qantas, Virgin

Andrew Tillett Political Correspondent

Sep 18, 2019 — 12.01am

Reducing airports' passenger charges would lead to cheaper airfares for consumers and deliver a significant lift in productivity, the chiefs of Qantas and Virgin Australia will say on Wednesday as they combine to pressure the Morrison government to act on their monopoly.

But the airports counter it is the airlines being greedy and anti-competitive, with Qantas enjoying bumper profits that outstrip what the biggest four gateways made collectively last year.

Airlines and airport operators are at loggerheads before the release next month of a Productivity Commission inquiry into the regulation of airports.

Qantas chief executive Alan Joyce and Virgin Australia counterpart Paul Scurrah will address the National Press Club on Wednesday to argue airports are charging consumers more than they should.

"As a business person, I’m not suggesting for a minute that airports don’t deserve to turn a profit. Of course they do. But with margins like theirs, there is clearly something out of kilter," Mr Joyce will say according to speech notes.

"The difference between Qantas and the airports is that we actually face real competition. We compete every single day with Virgin, Rex, Air New Zealand and in some cases dozens of airlines for customers. We compete on the price of every single seat of every flight.

"And it’s this competition which ultimately sets airfares. So, if there is a cost advantage, history shows that airlines will use it to sharpen fares. That’s why they’ve dropped so much over the past 10 years."


Mr Joyce will say there should be a "straightforward dispute resolution" system to act as a check against the airports' monopoly, saying deadlocks between carriers and airports had cost millions of dollars over the years.


'The status quo isn’t working'


"Clearly, the status quo isn’t working. Fees and charges from monopoly airports are excessive and damaging the economy," Mr Joyce will say.


"And airports continue to reap super profits because there is no real threat
of intervention to moderate their behaviour."


Mr Scurrah, who assumed the top job at Virgin in March, will say airports are generating profit margins that are "grossly inflated" because of their pricing power.


He will say an arbitration model is fair, not one sided and will drive economic growth, not just for airlines but tourism operators, importers and exporters


"It seems hard to argue that Australian travellers, and the economy more broadly, should have to pay the price of a system which prevents airport customers from negotiating fair and reasonable deals," Mr Scurrah will say.


"Meanwhile, airports have become less productive despite the rising charges.


"With the government’s ambitious, productivity-boosting agenda, the airlines and other airport users shouldn’t be expected to do all the heavy lifting in the aviation sector."


Self-interest


But Australian Airports Association chief executive officer Caroline Wilkie accused the airlines of acting in self-interest and jeopardising $20 billion in investment in airport upgrades.


“This isn’t the first time we’ve seen this; Qantas was down in Canberra in 2014 asking for a handout from the government and since then they’ve made $6 billion in profit," she said.


"In the last year alone, Qantas made more profit than the four major Australian airports combined.


“Qantas and Virgin want to squeeze competition out of the market to entrench the domestic duopoly and they know that’s exactly what will happen if they turn the screws on airport investment.”


Australian Competition and Consumer Commission chief Rod Sims said airports were effectively unregulated monopolies and he had been proposing for some time a negotiate-arbitrate regime.

"That would give the airlines, be they Qantas, Virgin or the smaller ones, the ability to negotiate with the airports, and if they don’t get the deal they want, the right to arbitration. If you like, it would even up the bargaining power," he told the ABC.

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

Sandy's comment in reply to LMH - 

Reference from last week's LMH:

...The feedback from AirVenture 2019 inevitably contained one sentiment common to just about everyone I spoke to: heartbreak. Events like these consume a lot of time and emotion from the organisers and when the weather gods express their displeasure it's absolutely gut-wrenching. The infamous dust storm on the Saturday was a real crowd-killer as you would expect, but even as the blue skies returned on the Sunday, the attendance from outside Parkes was not as high as the organisers would have hoped. Yes, it was heartbreaking to that extent, and one other: the fact that both this show and Ausfly are constant reminders of the destructive rift in the general aviation community. People are at their wits end with the finger-pointing and constant bickering between AOPA Australia and RAAus that is causing the split. The words "fed up" are starting to be spat back at me whenever I bring up the subject, and fair enough too! This is now at the point where two groups who constantly spout how they are all for promoting general aviation are actually causing a lot of damage en route. It has created an environment of antagonism that just has no place in GA, and the reality is that the ongoing war is not reflective of the true wishes of the majority of people within the GA community. Both AirVenture and Ausfly will continue to struggle as long as they are symbols of this rift and force aviators to choose between one or the other. It's time for one big GA fly-in, preferably organised by a party completely independent of either of the current antagonists.

Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/the-l...9hVPV64.99

Sandy in reply...

Sandy Reith • 2 days ago

RAAus and AOPA split? I understand AOPA is supporting the weight increase so its not all a one way street. The overarching reality is that there should never have been a government induced split in the first place and there is no, repeat zero, reason why we should not all be in one simplified and graduated system with none of the crazy transitional problems. Problems that are, like the sometimes heated and destructive contretemps between unnaturally competing interests, should never have been built in by the irresponsible and thoughtless actions of Ministers and Governments.

Its been plain from the start that the low weight system is designed to siphon off lots of pesky private pilots, induce them, with self declared medicals and some eased maintenance requirements, into the low weight category. No thought was given to suitability, the needs of many for carrying capacity or range or sufficient for the often windy and rough flying conditions of Australia. Building down to an unrealistic weight was always going to create severe problems.

Hiving off what is properly a function of government to a government sponsored private monopoly company will never work fully to the national interest, there are too many ambiguities, and there are incentives within the hierarchies of management to pursue sectional and personal interests.

If only a Minister with eyes to see and a backbone to cause reform. - Yes if only...

Well said that man and the chocfrog is in the mail...


MTF...P2 

[Kharon]

A matter of concern.

TOM called the meeting to order; the crew settled down. Item one is a matter of great concern. The needless head butting and hair pulling going on between RAA and AOPA. It is seen as counterproductive, destructive, divisive, irresponsible and “bloody childish” (not my words). A solution is needed..

So, what to do? History and believe it or not, John Sharp (as Minister) provide the answer. Back in the day, when Sharp was in the hot seat and CASA still had some honourable, intelligent men working for them; a plan was made to accommodate all Part 145 outfits with a set of ‘standards’ which CASA generated and the Alphabet groups could administer. It was a fair and equitable solution; so much so that both Canada and the EASA adopted it, put in a level playing field, and have never been troubled again.

Perhaps it is time the Australian plan was adopted in Australia.

I need to do a bit of digging around and talk to some folk; to be sure the plan can work. If it all pans out, it will be up to the members of the individual groups to sit their ‘management’ down and tell ‘em to get behind it, unite and make it happen. I understand there is a letter to the minister on it’s way, outlining the plan. Ministerial credibility could be partially restored on his nod.

Let’s hope good sense prevails. More to follow as matters progress. Fingers crossed.

Toot – toot.

[Peetwo]

Sandy's comment in reply to LMH - 

Reference from last week's LMH:

...The feedback from AirVenture 2019 inevitably contained one sentiment common to just about everyone I spoke to: heartbreak. Events like these consume a lot of time and emotion from the organisers and when the weather gods express their displeasure it's absolutely gut-wrenching. The infamous dust storm on the Saturday was a real crowd-killer as you would expect, but even as the blue skies returned on the Sunday, the attendance from outside Parkes was not as high as the organisers would have hoped. Yes, it was heartbreaking to that extent, and one other: the fact that both this show and Ausfly are constant reminders of the destructive rift in the general aviation community. People are at their wits end with the finger-pointing and constant bickering between AOPA Australia and RAAus that is causing the split. The words "fed up" are starting to be spat back at me whenever I bring up the subject, and fair enough too! This is now at the point where two groups who constantly spout how they are all for promoting general aviation are actually causing a lot of damage en route. It has created an environment of antagonism that just has no place in GA, and the reality is that the ongoing war is not reflective of the true wishes of the majority of people within the GA community. Both AirVenture and Ausfly will continue to struggle as long as they are symbols of this rift and force aviators to choose between one or the other. It's time for one big GA fly-in, preferably organised by a party completely independent of either of the current antagonists.

Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/the-l...9hVPV64.99

Sandy in reply...

Sandy Reith • 2 days ago

RAAus and AOPA split? I understand AOPA is supporting the weight increase so its not all a one way street. The overarching reality is that there should never have been a government induced split in the first place and there is no, repeat zero, reason why we should not all be in one simplified and graduated system with none of the crazy transitional problems. Problems that are, like the sometimes heated and destructive contretemps between unnaturally competing interests, should never have been built in by the irresponsible and thoughtless actions of Ministers and Governments.

Its been plain from the start that the low weight system is designed to siphon off lots of pesky private pilots, induce them, with self declared medicals and some eased maintenance requirements, into the low weight category. No thought was given to suitability, the needs of many for carrying capacity or range or sufficient for the often windy and rough flying conditions of Australia. Building down to an unrealistic weight was always going to create severe problems.

Hiving off what is properly a function of government to a government sponsored private monopoly company will never work fully to the national interest, there are too many ambiguities, and there are incentives within the hierarchies of management to pursue sectional and personal interests.

If only a Minister with eyes to see and a backbone to cause reform. - Yes if only...

A matter of concern.

TOM called the meeting to order; the crew settled down. Item one is a matter of great concern. The needless head butting and hair pulling going on between RAA and AOPA. It is seen as counterproductive, destructive, divisive, irresponsible  and “bloody childish” (not my words). A solution is needed..

So, what to do? History and believe it or not, John Sharp (as Minister) provide the answer. Back in the day, when Sharp was in the hot seat and CASA still had some honourable, intelligent men working for them; a plan was made to accommodate all Part 149 outfits with a set of ‘standards’ which CASA generated and the Alphabet groups could administer. It was a fair and equitable solution; so much so that both Canada and the EASA adopted it, put in a level playing field, and have never been troubled again.

Perhaps it is time the Australian plan was adopted in Australia.

I need to do a bit of digging around and talk to some folk; to be sure the plan can work. If it all pans out, it will be up to the members of the individual groups to sit their ‘management’ down and tell ‘em to get behind it, unite and make it happen. I understand there is a letter to the minister on it’s way, outlining the plan. Ministerial credibility could be partially restored on his nod.

Let’s hope good sense prevails. More to follow as matters progress. Fingers crossed.

Toot – toot.

Mike Borgelt nails it with his comment in reply to Sandy...

---

Mike Borgelt  Sandy Reith • 3 days ago

Bravo Sandy! I'm pleased that someone else gets it.

Of course there should be no split. The concept of these self administering organisations was pioneered by the failed organisational model of the GFA with its long declining and geriatric membership.

All Australian aircraft should be VH registered and all pilots be required to hold at minimum a Recreational Pilot's Licence, not some mickey mouse "certificate" from some private organisation which has "trained" pilots with instructors who may have as few as 100 hours total aeronautical experience.

The only question is the standards. The need for RAAus and GFA would go away with a couple of minor changes to the regulations: 1) For aircraft under x kilograms the owner MAY, if desired, maintain and sign the aircraft out. 2) for aircraft under x kilograms the pilot medical standard is the self declaration and/or State Driver's Licence for Private Motor Vehicles. Simple and effective and a level playing field. Then we can decide rationally what x should be. US experience with LSA aircraft is that the mishap rate is 5 to 6 times that of heavier GA aircraft. 1000 Kg would cover all reasonable single and two seat aircraft and ditch the silly 45 knot stall rquirement. Heavier aircraft with higher stall speeds are more easily able to cope with turbulence, rough Australian airfields and will have much longer fatigue lives. Note that gliders and motorgliders may be up to 850 Kg gross and at that weight may have stalling speeds of up to 49 knots.

Instead we have CASA's Part 149 abomination which requires people to pay private monopolies even if the person already holds a RPL or higher qualification and appropriate ratings, tailwheel, glider etc. resulting in much higher costs and multiple periodic flight reviews. Part 149 has consumed many thousands of man hours at CASA and the private bodies and many of these people are not paid for their efforts.

The resulting mish mash of medical standards, airworthiness standards and maintenance standards is nothing for CASA to be proud of and neither is the CASA sanctioned accident rate in GFA and RAAus.

---

MTF...P2

[Sandy Reith]

Mike Borgelt, pat your back back. Seriously, its so plain what needs to be done and the only reason there’s zero progression towards a commonsense workable system is that the model of governance creates incentives within CASA that are diametrically opposed to a rational evidence based system fit for purpose. The regulator should not be able to be sued, individuals within for wrongdoing are a different matter. The current model encourages the imposition of a swag of unnecessary permissions to which attach (think of a number) swingeing fees. There is no competition and the ‘hands off’ Minister (I’d hazard a guess) has never caused any pull back. The staggering CASA rip offs have been ongoing since the ‘90s and escalating at a great rate since. Its a total disgrace and an affront to our right to work and our general freedom of action. Written into the USA Constitution about 250 years ago the right to pursue happiness, unfortunately we haven’t yet caught up with this fundamental and universal principle because its not in our law. This is the problem with a Monarchical system where we still acquiesce to the notion that a licence is a privilege granted by our Sovereign. Never mind, wag your tails puppies, She will throw a bone every now and then. With apologies to all Royal sentimentalists.

[Peetwo]

Meanwhile across the dutch??

Perhaps the Alphabets should be talking more to our cousins across the ditch  because it would seem they have a much more amicable relationship with their regulator in things like aviation medicals and flight training etc..etc..

For example observe, courtesy Radio NZed:

---

Drop in numbers of experienced flight instructors a 'crisis'

10:57 am on 4 November 2019

Hamish Cardwell, Journalist
@HamishCardwell hamish.cardwell@rnz.co.nz

A decline in the number of experienced aeroplane and helicopter pilot trainers is raising safety concerns in the airline industry because of the loss of their skills.



A Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) report said there has been an overall 13 percent drop in flight instructor numbers in just two years, and a decline in the number of experienced instructors.


It warned the figures were a "continuing cause for concern" and could make it hard to sustain the quality of training.

The number of pilots trained in New Zealand has dropped substantially in the last decade, and there is a global shortage of pilots.

Tony Page, the president of Flying New Zealand which represents aero clubs, said the drop in instructor numbers was a crisis.

He said the loss of the most senior instructors meant their incredible skills would not be passed onto the next generation.

"They've got [flying] in their soul, and they've learnt over a long period of time [all the] different things that [can] happen.

"They have all the skill and technique to recover from most things."

CAA report author David Harrison said the authority was keeping a close eye on the situation.

"Clearly more experienced instructors will tend to deliver better quality training.

"So we have to be careful that with reducing experience levels, we maintain a level of supervision such that that quality of training is not diluted."

The report said between 2012 and 2016 there had been a "significant rise" in the number of accidents and incidents during training where pilots did not follow proper flying procedures.

This had since plateaued off, and Mr Harrison said the increase was likely driven by better incident reporting.

But the report also said there was anecdotal evidence that instructor inexperience had played a role in recent incidents.

Mr Harrison said: "When we have the issue we have currently, where experience levels are dropping .... there is a potential, and I'll stress potential, for that to increase risk.

"So by identifying that we can now work with the industry to ensure that we tackle that issue so the risk does not eventuate."

Tim Robinson from the Air Line Pilots' Association said as long as the less-experienced trainers were properly supervised the risk could be managed.

"There's always a concern that the experience levels have dropped, and ... that is a safety-related issue.

"But that can be mitigated by good supervision and making sure the more inexperienced instructors are monitored and they're training to the highest level that they possibly can."

The airline sector worldwide has been growing rapidly, increasing the demand for pilots. Airlines in New Zealand have been snapping up flight instructors in recent years.

Mr Page said the airlines were making offers that the less experienced instructors could not refuse, to come work for them.

"The instructors [that work with the aero clubs], the junior ones, basically we're lucky if we can keep them for a year to 18 months.

"It takes a lot of time and effort in development to get the instructors to the level where they [are close to becoming senior instructors].

"By the time we get them near, the airlines are grabbing them."

Mr Page said if the airlines keep up this hiring pattern it could be bad for them in the long haul.

"Eventually what'll happen is we won't be able to develop our instructors to the standard that they require for the airlines - and then what do they do?

"Because we're no longer being able to provide them with their pilots."

Mr Harrison said the CAA was working with the industry to ensure the less experienced instructors get the training and supervision they needed.

Ref: https://www.aviation.govt.nz/assets/publ...r-2019.pdf

---

---

"..Four issues have been highlighted in this Review for action, and the CAA PFT team will be monitoring these over the next 6 months and liaising with training organisations about how the risks are being managed. Good ideas will be shared across the sector. Of course, there is plenty more to be looked at and so your feedback will be essential in shaping future risk-mitigation activities..."

Fancy that a regulator that gives a toss with resulting collaboration between the regulator and industry to proactively identify, consult then address a growing safety issue before it becomes a major problem - I want what they're having...

MTF...P2