[Peetwo]

AIPA to go NX legal on CASA FRMS (non-)consultation?? 

(ps And Nick's back -   )

Via the Oz:

---

Pilots bring in lawyers to examine CASA role in ULR flights



Qantas pilots are considering legal action against the Civil Aviation Safety Authority for shutting them out of discussions about a new fatigue risk management system (FRMS).

CASA will play a critical role in whether new ultra-long range flights go ahead or not, based on plans for managing fatigue submitted by Qantas.

But Australian and International Pilots Association president Mark Sedgwick said excluding them from FRMS discussions was a serious policy error.

The International Civil Aviation Organisation recommended that airlines, pilot associations and regulators engage closely to address fatigue risk management but this had not happened, he said.

“AIPA has been advocating for better pilot representation in influencing aviation regulation in Australia, which should be at the aviation safety advisory panel level at CASA,” said Mr Sedgwick. “Our pilots have told us they are very concerned about the impact longer flight and duty times will have on their long-term health and wellbeing.”

AIPA had retained the law firm of former senator Nick Xenophon to explore the framework being applied by CASA for the review of proposed ultra-long range flying.

Mr Xenophon said the current approach was “out of kilter” with international best practice.

---

Look's like Dr ("I've lost my marbles") Aleck may have yet another legal challenge to protect his 30+year, $500+million, ICAO/FAA IASA obfuscated, Big R-regulator reform program legacy...

Hmmm...and NX knows exactly where all the JA promulgated legal turd bombs lie - could be an interesting one to watch...

(Hint NX: See FRMS & the timeline of regulatory embuggerance & FAA IASA audit, FRMS & an 'inconvenient ditching'? )

MTF...P2 

Ps

Pilots will fly Sunrise despite risk: Woodward

ROBYN IRONSIDE
Follow @ironsider


Retired Qantas pilot Richard Woodward.

• 12:00AM NOVEMBER 29, 2019
  
  
• 88 COMMENTS
  

A former Qantas pilot has warned his colleagues of the potential health effects of ultra-long range flying but predicted they will still agree to do the airline’s Project Sunrise flights.

After almost 33 years with Qantas including 11 years as an A380 captain, Richard Woodward officially retired this month, closing the curtains on a stellar career.

But his departure came with a warning to colleagues currently in negotiations with Qantas to operate ultra-long range services from Australia’s east coast to cities like New York and London.

He said detailed research undertaken by the airline in co-operation with the pilots’ association, universities and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority some years ago identified the disturbing effects of fatigue on a pilot’s performance.

“We found if the captain got less than five hours of sleep over an extended period of time, the crew’s ability to make, manage and maintain a plan of action was severely degraded,” said Mr Woodward.

“Similarly if the first officer got less than five hours of sleep then the crew’s ability to reflect on that plan and maybe alter outcomes was severely degraded because it’s the first officer’s job to monitor what the captain wants to do.”

He said if the crew was fatigued to that level, the consequential error rate doubled.

“A consequential error is an error that if left unchecked will have safety outcomes for the aeroplane,” Mr Woodward said.

“For example, if you had clearance to climb to an altitude, say 37,000 feet, and you misread it, or were tired enough that you dialled the wrong number into the aeroplane, you’d be in conflict with traffic coming the other way.”

Further tests were undertaken in simulators using pilots fatigued after long flights, and those who were well rested.

Mr Woodward said the fatigued pilots made more errors than those who were fresh but their “error correction rate was very good”.

What was lacking in the research, which took into account more than 13,000 sleep nights of data, was a long-term view of the health effects of long haul flying.

Mr Woodward said pilots were generally in excellent health when recruited and were monitored throughout their career, so they tended to be healthier than the rest of the population.

“In my experience, pilots are a lot more health-conscious now than they used to be, but is that enough to mitigate the risk of working 22-hour days every second week or every week for the next 20 years?” he asked.

“I don’t have the answer but I think we should study it.”

Despite his misgivings about the health effects of such operations, Mr Woodward believed it was unlikely to deter pilots from taking on Project Sunrise-style flights.

“I think the pilots will do it and they’ll do it to the best of their ability,” he said.

“Pilots are our own worst enemy. Professionally we will do whatever the task is and we will manage it.”

[Peetwo]

Remember this?

Another couple for the Mick Mack aviation safety shitlist - 

Still catching up on this but from last week in the Oz:

---

Pilot courses on hold during audit



Enrolments in aviation courses with Box Hill Institute are believed to be on hold as the TAFE college responds to an audit by the Australian Skills Quality Authority.

As The Australian revealed last week, 15 former students of Box Hill and Soar Aviation were seeking refunds of their VET loans because they were unhappy with the training they received. That figure has grown to 35 students, including 30 from Melbourne and five from Sydney.

It followed revelations more than 400 students were enrolled in two-year commercial pilots’ licence courses at Box Hill in 2018, which had received $11m in loan payments in return.

Department of Education figures showed only six people had graduated from the diploma course but Soar Aviation CEO Neel Khokhani said the figure was as high as 61. Box Hill CEO Vivienne King confirmed ASQA had audited aviation delivery at the institute and it was currently responding to the audit report as requested.

---

Plus:

Flight training suspended at Soar Aviation

---

And from the embuggerance & SBG threads:

Lead Balloon; Respect.

& 

GlenB embuggerance latest - 05/11/19: St Commode email account - WTD??

Eventually that did get sorted and the dodgy Soar operation is back up and running. However it would appear that unscrupulous pilot training providers unfortunately are not a rarity...

From Ironsider, via the Oz:

Easy entry to pilot courses under fire



Student pilot Amy Cavanough, 23 with her instructor Adrian Norman, director of Cleveland Bay Aviation. Picture: Cam Laird

EXCLUSIVE
ROBYN IRONSIDE
AVIATION WRITER
@ironsider

9:21PM DECEMBER 2, 2019
10 COMMENTS
Flight training schools taking on hundreds of prospective pilots have been urged to strengthen ­eligibility criteria so unsuitable students are not left with huge debts and little to show for it.

Gaining entry into commercial pilot licence courses funded by six-figure VET student loans can be as easy as an online test or a tertiary entrance score (ATAR) as low as 40.65.

Adrian Norman, of Cleveland Bay Aviation in Townsville, said easy access to funding meant a lot of young people were signing up for two-year courses with the ­expectation of landing a job with an airline. “To my mind, it is ­unconscionable to attract young people to a course where many will have little chance of meeting the academic and skills requirements to obtain a CPL, let alone meet the stringent psychographic profiling ­requirements for employment in the airlines, and then condemn them to a debt when they fail or drop out,” he said.


His concerns were shared by David Prossor, a flight instructor at Moorabbin, Melbourne.

“There should be a filter of some sort such that prospective commercial trainees are not up for big money to then find out that they are not suitable to be a pilot,” he said.

A former student of Box Hill Institute in Melbourne and Soar Aviation said the enrolment test could be completed at home and focused on basic English and simple algebra equations. On its website, Soar Aviation says its courses do not require a background in “physics or mathematics”. “We will teach you what you need to know to achieve a commercial pilot ­licence,” it says.

Box Hill and Soar were contacted by The Australian but did not respond.

Another student pilot who spent two years training at RMIT, said the eligibility criteria there consisted of an “exceptionally low” ATAR score of 40.65. “When I asked why is it so low, I was told, ‘because we want to ­attract people who really want to be pilots’,” he said.

An RMIT spokeswoman said the institute was committed to improving access to education.

“It is important to note that entry into this program is ­extremely competitive and after being accepted there is an ongoing requirement for students to be committed to full-time study and attend all courses,” she said.

According to Department of Employment data, CPL courses attracted the second-largest amount of VET student loans after nursing and the highest amount per enrolment. In the six months to June 30, there were 8643 people enrolled in diploma of nursing courses for which $25.8m worth of loans had been paid. In comparison, 814 people were enrolled in CPL courses funded almost entirely by $19.8m worth of VET loans.

A spokesman for Employment Minister Michaelia Cash said she wanted every VET student to have confidence their training provider would deliver training they needed to become job-ready.

Self-funded trainee pilot Amy Cavanough said persistence and dedication were the keys to success in aviation. “It’s not easy, but there is a great network of support available,” she said.

Senator Cash’s spokesman said: “Quality vocational training is critical to our economy and the government does not tolerate poor-quality training providers. Every training provider must meet strict requirements before they can deliver an approved course.”

 

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

Via Oz Flying:

---

Andersen appointed Chair as Minister revamps Advisory Group
6 December 2019
Comments 0 Comments
    

Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport Michael McCormack yesterday appointed former AOPA Australia president Andrew Andersen as the chairman of the new General Aviation Advisory Network (GAAN).

Andersen, who is the Vice President Pacific Council of the International Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (IAOPA), is a 30-year pilot and aircraft owner and co-chair of the industry organisation Australian Strategic Air Traffic Management Group’s (ASTRA) Satellite-based Augmentations Systems sub-group.

GAAN was previously known as the General Aviation Advisory Group (GAAG) and was chaired by former Royal Flying Doctor Service CEO Dr Martin Laverty, who has since left both the network and the RFDS.

“The members of the Network are selected based on their skills and expertise in the aviation industry and come from a cross-section of the diverse general aviation sector," McCormack said. "This includes training, manufacturing, maintenance, sport and recreation, rotorcraft and fixed wing aircraft, aerial applications, remotely piloted aircraft systems and medical operations.

“I look forward to continuing to work closely with Mr Andersen and the General Aviation Advisory Network to ensure Australia’s general aviation sector remains viable and safe.”

Members of the new network are:
Andrew Andersen (Chair) – Vice President International AOPA
Catherine Fitzsimons – Owner and Chief Pilot, Ward Air Flight Training
Mike Higgins – CEO, Regional Aviation Association of Australia
Marguerite Morgan – Business Development Manager, GippsAero/Mahindra Aerospace Company
Phil Hurst – CEO, Aerial Application Association of Australia
Michael Monck – President, Recreational Aviation Australia
Peter Gash – Managing Director and Chief Pilot, Seair Pacific
Phillip Reiss – Director, Yowie Bay Pty Ltd
Paul Tyrrell – CEO, Australian Helicopter Industry Association
Grahame Hill – President, Air Sport Australia Confederation
Reece Clothier – President, Australian Association for Unmanned Systems
David Bell – CEO, Australian Business Aviation Association
Marc De Stoop – CEO, Falconair

Paul Tyrrell and Grahame Hill are also new to the network, replacing colleagues Peter Crook and Mike Close respectively.

In June 2018, the then GAAG was tasked with creating a GA Flight Plan that would prioritise tasks for the group based on the 2018 Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics (BITRE) 2017 survey.

The aims of the plan were to develop a broad long-term strategic perspective for GA, propose how air safety regulation can support GA through clear, consistently applied and proportionally responsible administration; and maintain and enhance GA industry capability through workforce planning and access to airspace and infrastructure.

Andrew Andersen is also a freelance writer for Australian Flying specialising in technology.

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

---

Plus:

---

 

AGAA plans GA Summit for 2020
5 December 2019
Comments 0 Comments

The Australian General Aviation Alliance (AGAA) is planning another general aviation summit for next year to co-incide with the two-year senate inquiry into regulation announced this week.

AGAA last held a GA summit in Wagga Wagga in July 2018, which prompted the government to make changes to the Civil Aviation Act 1988.

AGAA–through executive partner AOPA Australia–has already stated that it will attend all public sessions of the senate inquiry in order to make sure the voice of the GA community is heard clearly.

"We've already been to Canberra to discuss how we're going to bring this body of work forward so that the review is digested by the [inquiry] panel," said AGAA spokesperson, AOPA's Ben Morgan, "and we will start this process next year with our second general aviation summit, which will be held around March.

"We'll have the members of the senate RRAT attending, and we've extended an invitation to the Deputy Prime Minister and are waiting a reply from his office.

"We'll be opening up the 2020 summit not just to the industry associations, but also to aviation businesses and individuals. We'd like to see the summit attended by the largest number of people possible."

Morgan said that AGAA hoped that after the summit the alliance would be in a position to collate the concerns of the general aviation community and present it as evidence at the inquiry hearings due to start around June or July next year.

AGAA is yet to announce to location and date for the summit.

The last AGAA summit brought together over 30 industry associations and was attended by Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development Michael McCormack, the Shadow Minister for Transport and now Federal Opposition leader Anthony Albanese, CASA Group Manager - Stakeholder Engagement Rob Walker, International Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association Secretary General Craig Spence and Senator Slade Brockman from WA.

---

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

A Soar Saga continues - 

Via the Oz:

---

ATSB probes most recent student crash at Soar Aviation



An investigation has been launched into the crash of a light aircraft during a solo training flight by a student of Soar Aviation at Moorabbin in Victoria on Thursday morning.

According to the Australian Transport Safety Bureau, the Bristell S-LSA aircraft was making a final approach for a touch and go landing which involves coming in to land then taking off again.

Instead, the plane pitched up and yawed steeply, crashing into the ground and flipping on to its bubble canopy, trapping the pilot inside.

The pilot suffered multiple fractures and had to be cut from the aircraft by paramedics. He was taken to hospital in a serious condition. The aircraft was substantially damaged.

The Australian understands another scheduled flight training session at Soar was cancelled because of unsuitable weather conditions.

At the time of the crash, just before 10am on Thursday the winds were between 10 and 12 knots, with a 12 knot crosswind.

As part of its investigation, the ATSB will examine the crash site and the aircraft wreckage, interview air traffic control and other relevant personnel and conduct data recovery.

Another crash involving a Soar student pilot and training instructor remains under investigation by the ATSB.

In that incident near Stawell on October 5, 2018, the student was left a paraplegic.

Soar was recently forced to suspend flight training for students of Box Hill Institute after its joint commercial pilot licence course with the TAFE college was audited by the Australian Skills Quality Authority.

A number of former Soar students are pursuing the flight training school in the Victorian Civil Administrative Tribunal, seeking a refund of their fees.

They claim their flight training was inappropriate and they were charged excessively with little to show for it.

Comment has been sought from Soar owner Neel Khokhani and Box Hill.

The ATSB expects to deliver its final report on Thursday morning's crash by mid-2020.

---

Hmm...remind me is Soar Aviation a Part 141 or Part 142 operation? 



And also Alphabet related...

Via the Oz:

---

Worker shortage adding to industrial disputes



Industrial action is likely to become a hallmark of the aviation industry as the shortage of skilled workers such as pilots and engineers becomes more critical, the group representing international airlines has warned.

The International Air Transport Association’s global media day in Geneva heard airlines were facing considerable challenges on the labour front with unemployment at record lows in some countries.

It came as Jetstar raced to reaccommodate passengers after cancelling 90 flights ahead of four-hour strikes by pilots this weekend.

IATA chief executive Alexandre de Juniac said labour relations had been an issue for many airlines over the past couple of years and there was no indication that was about to change.

“Labour markets are very tight, and unionised labour forces have a fair bit of market power,” Mr de Juniac said.

“They’re looking back at the profits airlines have earned in recent years and are demanding their members get their share. I think that will continue to be an issue until we get a recession, which we are not expecting.”

Despite the recent airline profitability, the conference was told 2019 was not as prosperous as ­expected. Mr de Juniac said economic performance was weaker than anticipated and, of more than 200 airlines, only “20 or 30” were keeping the industry in the black. “There’s a long tail of airlines that are still just about breaking even, and haven’t really seen much improvement in the last 10 years, and we’ve seen a series of bankruptcies mostly in Europe,” he said.

Trade wars, geopolitical tensions and continuing uncertainty over Brexit were blamed for a tougher than anticipated business environment for airlines, as well as the grounding of the Boeing 737 MAX.

Despite the IATA representing only 0.5 per cent of the global fleet, the association’s chief economist, Brian Pearce, said a number of airlines were unable to put on the services they wanted to, and connectivity suffered.

“As a result consumers suffered, and businesses suffered because they didn’t get the results they hoped,” Mr Pearce said. “Some airlines managed to bring aircraft out of storage and extend the lives of aircraft that are clearly less fuel efficient and that has damaged profitability.”

IATA senior vice-president of safety and flight operations Gilberto Lopez Meyer said the best way forward for the 737 MAX was a co-ordinated return to service.

“The public needs confidence in the integrity of the aircraft and there should be no suggestions (some states) don’t agree with the aircraft,” he said.

---

Plus via AOPA Oz:

AIRPORT PRIVATISATION DOGFIGHT: AIRLINES CALLING OUT GOVERNMENT INACTION
December 12, 2019 By Benjamin Morgan

Australia's airline industry is hitting back at the destructive impacts of airport privatistion on both the aviaiton industry and broader economy.



Press Release, 11th December 2019:  A4ANZ – Airport disputes to worsen, hurt economic growth, as Government passes on the opportunity for reform

Airlines for Australia and New Zealand (A4ANZ) today said that the Government’s refusal to act on the worsening behavior of Australia’s monopoly airports and their super profits would lead to more disputes, court action and hurt the wider Australian economy in 2020.

Commenting on the joint statement from the Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer in response to the Productivity Commission’s Inquiry into the Economic Regulation of Airports Final Report, A4ANZ Chairman Professor Graeme Samuel AC, said, “By saying the ACCC need to monitor the airports more, the Government is admitting there is a problem. Yet they have squibbed the chance to actually do something about it for the Australian traveling public.”

“This is despite the Government having a solution in front of them; the modest, evidence-based reforms proposed by the ACCC, which would see the introduction of an independent umpire to resolve disputes between airports and their customers, improving efficiency and delivering benefits to consumers and the economy.”

“The Government must urgently rethink this, because Australia’s airlines and airport users face significantly increasing costs that will lead to more disputes like the multi-year court case where Perth Airport is suing Qantas to extract monopoly rent.”

Prof Samuel said “Three successive chairs of the ACCC – reflecting their experience of nearly two decades – have consistently said that monitoring of monopolies is useless and real change is needed, not just the collection of more data. Airlines, other airport users and Australian travellers don’t want this situation to continue either; 82% of consumers polled expected Government to make genuine changes. But where is the consumer in the Government’s response? Complaints about prices and service standards at our airports have obviously fallen on deaf ears. My advice to those who have a complaint over their airport experience, is to direct it to the Government. The airlines, together with a coalition of airport users, tried to have common sense applied in the interests of their customers, but the consumer has been ignored by Government.”

“This decision to endorse the recommendations of the widely-criticised PC Report is staggering. We are concerned that a decision to pass on the opportunity for any real reform is based on false assertions by airport lobbyists about the timing, costs, and consideration of competition and consumer interests.”

A4ANZ CEO, Dr Alison Roberts said, “Today’s announcement places the Government squarely on the side of monopoly airport operators and their investors. There is no other monopoly infrastructure in Australia which is exempt from processes to protect consumers against the exercise of market power. The Government’s response does nothing to ensure our airports can be the best and fairest in the world – simply the most profitable.”

“Australians now need to be prepared to accept that the next 5 years will deliver:
•airports continuing to slug passengers at every stage of the journey, from car parking (with 70% profit margins), $4 trolleys, outrageously expensive food and drinks, to the taxi fee (increased by nearly 300% in 2 years) or rental car surcharge;
•airports emboldened by the Government’s response – as we saw after the PC’s draft report’s release – to demand unreasonable terms in negotiations with airlines and other airport users, or embark on legal action;
•airports profiteering from the implementation of Government – mandated security measures;
•more costly and productivity-sapping disputes between airlines and airports; and
•more cases of expensive, inefficient and ineffective litigation through the courts to resolve these disputes.”

Prof Samuel said, “This announcement comes the same day that Perth Airport vs Qantas was heard in court for the first time, nearly one year after negotiations broke down, halting new routes and economic growth. This surely cannot be the Government’s preferred policy approach. There will certainly be an increase in litigation as the only means of resolving disputes, and this is what harms investment and creates negative outcomes for the community. Why the government would choose this course of action rather than the ACCC’s sensible proposal for an independent commercial arbitration that has been shown to work well in other sectors, defies commonsense. Why should airports be protected, and consumers have to pay the price?”

“As we are acutely aware at this time of year, air travel is a fundamental part of the Australian way of life. The aviation industry is essential to the economy, contributing over $100 billion and supporting over 700,000 jobs. This issue is too important to simply ignore. Faced with no option but more disputes and litigation, we will continue to work closely with the consumer watchdog – the ACCC, other airport users and Australian travellers, towards achieving the necessary reforms in any way we can. This will allow consumers to access more competitive fares, greater choice, and improved connections across Australia and the world.”

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

GAAAI - 

Not sure exactly who is behind this initiative but I note that yesterday there was a FB link added by Andrew Lamb to Hitch's article on the Senate Inquiry: 

"https://www.facebook.com/GA..." — Andrew Lamb http://disq.us/p/2674b0y

Pinned to that FB page is this:

GAAAI - General Aviation & Airports Association
18 hrs ·

When parliament listens and acknowledges there are issues it’s a marvellous thing. An opportunity for our community.

We at GAAAI know that the industry is busy, and some may not be confident writers. That is where we will assist in the collation of concerns.

This is positive for the industry. Having said that, parliamentarians are not mind readers!
Now it’s a chance for all of our members to write submissions of their experiences, so that we can collate them and formally make submissions to the enquiry, subject to the terms of reference.

Membership is free, send an email to Anita@360AG.com.au and we will send you a membership pack.

United we fly, divided we fall!

When I know more about the 'bona fides' will update? - MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

A Soar saga continues: Part II 

Via the Oz:

---

Student pilot training to end as diploma pulled at Box Hill Institute



Australia’s biggest recipient of taxpayer-funded student loans for trainee pilots has been stripped of its authority to offer aviation courses, leaving 400 students in the lurch.

Box Hill Institute was audited by the Australian Skills Quality Authority last year following a raft of complaints from students about course delivery and a very low graduation rate.

ASQA is the overseeing authority for VET student loans.

After the audit, flight training provided by Soar Aviation was suspended for a week and students informed of possible minor changes to their courses.

But in a letter distributed to students of Box Hill on Tuesday, aviation manager Adrian Lea said as a result of a decision by ASQA, the institute was no longer authorised to deliver the diploma of aviation from January 30.

“We understand this will be disappointing for you and we are urgently clarifying the ramifications of ASQA’s decision for our aviation students,” Mr Lea wrote.

“We are investigating seeking a reconsideration of the decision by ASQA however it is unclear whether such a request would be successful. In any case, the fact remains that the Diploma of Aviation (including its individual clusters) needs to be discontinued with effect from January 30, 2020.”

He went on to say that it was his “strong recommendation that students did not incur any further costs or fees in relation to enrolled units”, such as further flight training.

Department of Employment statistics for the six months to June 30, 2019, showed more than $7m worth of loans had been paid for 289 enrolments in the commercial pilot licence course at Box Hill.

In 2018, more than $11m in loans was paid for 402 enrolments, but only six students graduated.

A statement from Soar Aviation said its board “strongly refuted the findings of ASQA and the decision to revoke Box Hill Institute’s approval to provide third party practical training in conjunction with Soar Aviation.

“Many of ASQA’s conclusions are based on errors of fact and Soar Aviation is considering the appropriate avenues to maintain its registration,” the statement said.

“Soar Aviation and Box Hill Institute recently reviewed all procedures that are performed under Commercial Pilot Licence aviation training to ensure they comply with all relevant Civil Aviation legislation.”

The statement went to say 70 people had obtainted their Diploma of Aviation under the Box Hill program.

“A further 400 students are enrolled and part way through their course. We will do everything we can to ensure they have the opportunity to complete their training and successfully gain their qualifications.”

Soar Aviation and Box Hill Institute came under renewed scrutiny late last year after the second serious plane crash in 14-months.

On December 12, 2019, a student conducting a solo training flight was seriously injured when his Bristell S-LSA crashed during a “touch and go” manoeuvre at Moorabbin Airport.

On October 5, 2018, another student was left a paraplegic and his trainer injured when their training flight in a Bristell S-LSA went wrong near Stawell in Victoria.

Both incidents remain the subject of Australian Transport Safety Bureau investigations.

Mr Lea’s letter to students said Box Hill would do its best to support them through this period and navigate available options.

---

As an aside but also related to instructor &/or provider training standards; the following is a comment in reply by David Pilkington to this recent Oz Flying article on yet another possible CASA kneejerk overreaction to a ATSB identified pilot training safety issue:

..The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) today opened consultation on a proposed new advisory circular (AC) covering stall and spin training.

Plans for the AC have come after a series of accidents over the past 10 years in which aircraft have crashed during apparent stall/spin training, highlighted most recently through the crash of a Diamond DA40 near Toowoomba in September 2017.

"The induction of spins in aircraft not certified for spinning has been occurring in the flying training context," CASA states in its introduction. "It is possible this is due to the confounding of the definitions of the words 'wing drop' and 'incipient spin' in training and practice and has resulted in loss of control in the air (LOC-I) incidents and fatalities.

"It is possible that instructors may be conducting training beyond the limits of their aircraft to meet training needs without proper consideration of potential outcomes.

"This AC provides information and guidance regarding the conduct of advanced stalling exercises; in particular, stalls with a wing drop. Definitions of wing drop at the stall and spin at the incipient stage are clarified, certification standards providing margins of safety in specific modes of flight are discussed, and methods of training and practice are provided."

The final version of the AC is expected to cover the phases, recovery and avoidance of stalls and spins as well as definitions and certification requirements for stall and spin training.

The draft AC is on the CASA consultation hub, with feedback open until 27 January 2020.

---

David J Pilkington • 4 days ago

"Plans for the AC have come after a series of accidents over the past 10 years in which aircraft have crashed during apparent stall/spin training ..." quite a bit different than what is in the draft AC: "Recent fatal accidents involving spins in training aircraft suggest a lack of instructor and flying training organisation understanding of aircraft limitations ..." Well, actually what prompted this was an ATSB report on one of a number of serious spin accidents with flight instructors and students since CASA introduced Part 61.

---

Plus in reply to Oz Flying article: http://www.australianflying.com.au/lates...n-training

David J Pilkington • 3 months ago

In: “I would be looking at the instructors training in fully developed spin recovery technique.”

DJP’s response: I disagree although training and/or knowledge of the specific spin recovery procedure in a type different to the one they did spin training in could well be a factor. There is a relevant ATSB report on a Chipmunk spin accident a few years ago.

A type not approved for intentional spinning is designed just to be safe if recovery from a stall is delayed. It is not intended to be used for intentional incipient spins. I look forward to the next ATSB report on a spin accident with an instructor and student doing incipient spin training.

In: “Un-commanded fully developed spins do happen and sadly most instructors do not have a log book entry certifying that they have been tested and found to be competent in fully developed spin recovery techniques. Nor are they required to do so.”

DJP: A spin endorsement is mandatory for a flight instructor rating per Part 61. Previously it was imbedded in the instructor course although the CAO did not mandate a spin endorsement. I would be surprised if there was more than a handful of GA flight instructors did not have a spin endorsement. Spin training is coming for all RAA instructors.

In: “If a flight training organisation uses aircraft that are not approved for spinning they are not required to do more than an incipient spin in training.”

DJP: An aircraft not approved for spinning may not intentionally enter a spin. Spin as used by people who write flight manuals is defined as “a sustained autorotation at angles-of-attack above the stall” hence the CASA alert of 23 May:
“The conduct of an incipient spin in an aeroplane that is not approved for spinning places the aeroplane outside the normal operating envelope into the safety margins provided by the aeroplane certification standards for airframe structural integrity and demonstrated ability to recover from the manoeuvre.

CASA is developing further guidance material in relation to the conduct of incipient spins and advanced stalls and how to meet the flight training and testing standards in the Part 61 manual of standards. We expect to finalise these over the coming weeks.”

DJP: Those “coming weeks” have turned into months with still nothing from CASA!
 

For those of you who are not aware DJP is arguably overqualified to comment on the subject matters of pilot training and aircraft spin recovery etc..etc

Via AOPA Oz: https://aopa.com.au/aopa-australia-welco...-the-team/

David J Pilkington started flying in 1966 and commenced aerobatics a few years later. He specialises in tail-wheel and aerobatic instruction and is a Flight Examiner for spin and aerobatic instructors.  He was twice Australian Advanced Aerobatic Champion and was leader of a formation aerobatic team flying Pitts Specials.  Over the years he has owned a variety of aerobatic aircraft including an Airtourer, Decathlon, Laser and Pitts S-2A. The Laser was built by David and two friends. He currently owns a Pitts S-2C (shared with two friends) as well as a Super Decathlon which is used for training.

David has been a flight instructor since 1995 and prior to that was approved to teach advanced aerobatics and test for low level aerobatic approvals.  In 2011, David was awarded the Paul Tissandier Diploma by the FAI for his services to sport aerobatics over many years.

David has a Bachelor of Aeronautical Engineering from RMIT and a Master of Science from Cranfield University in the UK. His early career was in aircraft aerodynamic design, flight & wind tunnel testing, flight performance, handling qualities and flight loads including work with the NASA Spin Research Center.
He was Vice President, Engineering and Test Pilot at Aviat Aircraft, Inc (USA) in the mid-nineties working on the Husky and Pitts designs. Later Chief Engineer – Air Vehicles at ASTA Components (Boeing Australia) prior to joining GKN Aerospace Engineering Services in 2001 where he worked on projects such as the F-35.

  
Also from DJP's blog: A SPIN IS A SPIN

MTF...P2 

[P7_TOM]

A thick coating of dust.

That’s what I found on log book #1. Can’t think when I last looked at it. It is a thick, old fashioned ‘issue’ with many things not included in todays audit friendly model. Nevertheless, I note the handwriting immaculate, and each entry carefully made and stamped as ‘kosher’ by who ever was conducting my training at the time. Lovely thing, carefully kept and lest I run into some unscheduled bother, an artefact. So much for history……

I went looking for the thing because this current ‘state of 61 confusion’ and the words of Pilkington and the aircraft being used to train future commercial pilots and the instructors who are training them; set off a chain reaction. Pub 45 had a lot to do with it. I still have a copy. It is, to my mind, an almost ‘perfect’ guide to training pilots – BUT - it depended on the ‘instructor’ pilot being fully competent and correctly trained. It was written by pilots who actually trained instructors – practically, thoroughly and competently. 

The perennial problem instructor pilots face (apart from poverty and building hours) is the ‘unexpected’. The ‘unexpected’ is a rarity (or was) – but it can and does happen. For example a routine approach to stall and recovery (wing drop included) was not considered a ‘complex’ – pre first solo manoeuvre. It was mandatory. But, if things got a little out of shape, from the right seat, the instructor could, would and did simply take over, sort out the mess and – importantly – readdress the ‘stuff up’ - there and then – in flight – with a debrief to follow. Would the lesson be repeated?– Oh, you betcha as often as required – until it was understood and could be competently demonstrated.

From #1 book I note that I spent an enjoyable couple of hours (as notated) in steep turns, both on instruments and off; followed by approach to stall, followed by stalls – power off/ on – flap and clean – followed by incipient spins. I noted then, not for me. Chandelles, wing over, Cuban eights etc. were not for me. Fighter pilots do aerobatics – me; I like to deliver a load and the complexity of multi engine aircraft. You know since my first love affair with a twin Comm (PA 30)– I’ve never flown a single engine aircraft, nor had the desire to do so. Now I too digress (old age etc.)

That which kicked off this ramble is a three pronged (trident?) which needs to be delivered, with as much force as can be mustered into the heart of the of the CASA ‘safety beast’. Why? Well ‘safe flying’ has almost been written out of the script. ‘Things’ like Foxbats and Bristells may well suit the amateur happy to toddle about for an hour or so, every second Sunday arvo. No quarrel. They may be perfect for a Cocky to nip into town or fly over the property – No quarrel. They may even be, to those so minded, a handy runabout for a weekend sojourn – no quarrel (provided patience against a 10 knot wind is within ambit). But how can an ‘aircraft type’ with a seriously touchy Centre of Gravity’ (CoG) and somewhat whimsical Mean Aerodynamic Chord (MAC) and almost zero flight envelope ‘testing’ for certification be considered as ‘acceptable’ for training future ‘commercial’ quality pilots. Sure they tick all the Part 61 boxes –

I shall tell you a tale. One dark and stormy (it was a bugger) it was the ‘other chap’s’ sector. We had managed, despite my subtle hints (MCO waffle), to accumulate a fairly impressive amount of ice – the real thing. Even so, the gods nodded and we became visual --  field and lights – at a very handy level. Good enough for an easy visual, downwind leg – to landing - nearly. (Speed and height not conducive to tis luxury). Shoud be a walk in the park right? Wrong. Old mate had the thing going too fast, too steep (and just a little high) – so; modification indicated. No. It was, I must say, ‘difficult’ to sit through this; but then, you know how it is. There was some fairly serious power setting changes, speed came off a lot quicker than it would normally (hint) then, on the ragged edge of a stable approach, the bank angle went to around the 30˚ mark, showing signs of increasing to make the base turn. Small bleep from the stall warning - “Taking over” damn right. I pedalled the thing around, stabilised speed and height and built enough distance in to ensure no more than the Rate 1 turns which were needed to fly a sedate, stabilised, ‘book’ visual approach were a reality…

We landed, nothing was said as we watched 2” (50 mm) of clear ice sliding slowly off the wings etc. Later, (after beer #3) I answered the questions; with questions. (i) By how much did the ice increase our gross weight? (ii) By how much does a 30˚ bank turn increase our stall speed; (iii) By how much does a 40˚ bank turn increase our stall speed? Blank look was the stern reply. “Ok” says I (iv) had we stalled turning final, had we enough height to regain control?

I spent about six hours the next day explaining ‘basic’ aerodynamics to a fully qualified, CASA approved, commercial pilot, graduate of an approved course. In the end, and this kid is no dunce; we spent two days on the backboard, while I walked him through that which should have taught – and was not. He bought dinner a little later (and drink) – he looked at me, raised his glass and uttered the immortal words – “Fark me”. My response – “Cheers mate”.

No more needed saying.

There’s nothing wrong with our young folk – but the system for training ‘em – with ticks in boxes? Thank the gods for automation and computer skills is all I will say further. But one day – one time – etc…..

I agree ‘K’ – ‘tis a most excellent keyboard; and yes please – thurst’y wurk this writing lark. (Bless it).

[Cap'n Wannabe]

From The Age..

Student pilots consider class action against Melbourne flying school

Nerita Somers always wanted to be a pilot. But she is now $77,000 out of pocket without the commercial pilot licence she wanted after her flying school was stripped of its accreditation.

The 31-year-old is among dozens of students considering a class action against Soar Aviation, which ran a course through Box Hill Institute.

Last week, 400 students studying a diploma of aviation (commercial pilot licence – aeroplane) were told Soar Aviation was not compliant as a registered training organisation. The company is looking to appeal the decision by the Australian Skills Quality Authority.



Ms Somers signed up in 2017 to study aviation part time, two nights a week, on top of her full-time job as an analyst in Melbourne.

The skills authority found Soar Aviation was not adequately supporting the needs of individual students, wasn't meeting the requirements of the training package, and did not have appropriate assessment processes and practices.

Soar Aviation strongly rejects the findings, saying they are "based on errors of fact". The company will seek a review and may take its case to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

But Ms Somers said she would have pursued legal action through Gordon Legal even if the course had continued.

She has $77,500 in government VET loans and that figure doesn't take into account extra training she has had to make up for the course she said was not "fit for purpose".

"I knew what I had enrolled in was very different from what I was actually getting," Ms Somers said.

She believed the course would get her a recreational and commercial pilot licence. But she claims the commercial aspect was rescinded once the cut off date to withdraw from the course, without being billed, had passed.

Ms Somers claims students were told they would be fast-tracked to a separate course to then work towards getting a commercial licence.

"I had not enrolled to undertake ... in my opinion, an inferior qualification to do the recreational pilot certificate."

She alleges students were not properly trained or provided with the tools to learn and that flight lessons were repeatedly cancelled.

A spokeswoman for Soar Aviation declined to comment on claims involving individual students.

According to the skills authority, Soar Aviation said students' completed units would be recognised if they enrolled with a new aviation institution.

Gordon Legal principal lawyer James Naughton is investigating whether course advertisements matched what was delivered.

"Concerns that have been raised by students relate firstly to whether the content of the course was delivered in accordance with the requirements of the course, whether the training that was provided was at an adequate standard, and whether the students were trained in the right types of aeroplanes to allow them to proceed further with their studies towards commercial aviation licences," Mr Naughton said.

"We're [also] looking at whether there have been representations made by Box Hill Institute and Soar that may be misleading and deceptive."

Mr Naughton said Gordon Legal had asked for a meeting with both organisations but has not heard back.

A spokeswoman for Soar Aviation said it provided the highest level of training and safety, with 70 students obtaining their diploma through Box Hill Institute.

"We are confident that we are compliant in all areas of support for students, in training and assessment strategies and in regulatory compliance and governance," a spokeswoman said.

She said Soar Aviation and Box Hill Institute had only recently reviewed their procedures.

Box Hill Institute said it deeply regretted the situation and would help students navigate it.

"We have appointed dedicated aviation student liaison officers to help students explore their options. We are actively working with our stakeholders to address the outstanding matters."

The authority's decision was not related to a crash involving a plane owned by Soar Aviation at Moorabbin airport on December 12 that seriously injured a man.

Soar Aviation still holds a certificate for CASR part 141 flight training, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority said. All flights recorded in a student's logbook remain valid and can be counted towards training elsewhere.

[Peetwo]

Nick X is back...

Via the Oz:

Pilots warn CASA of legal obligation to consult on fatigue



Qantas pilots fear they will be stuck with unsafe rosters and maximum flying limits if the Civil Aviation Safety Authority signs off on permanent changes to fatigue risk management at the airline.

The Australian and International Pilots Association has not ruled out taking legal action against CASA, which is expected to rule soon on a trial undertaken by Qantas.

Under the new fatigue risk management system (FRMS) pilots’ length of duty may be increased from 18 to 20 hours, which AIPA opposes.

AIPA president Mark Sedgwick said CASA had failed to adequately consult with pilots on the new FRMS, which was not only disappointing but in breach of the regulator’s legal and safety responsibilities.

“We have requested CASA reconsider their decision to approve the trial of Qantas FRMS and withhold approving a permanent system until the concerns of AIPA, and our Qantas pilot members, have been properly considered,” said Mr Sedgwick.

“To ensure the safety of the travelling public the regulator, the airlines and pilots need to be in agreement that all reasonable risks are being properly managed.”

AIPA vice-president and safety and technical director Shane Loney said it was “vitally important that CASA fully assess all aspects of pilot fatigue including consultation with pilots before approving a full FRMS for Qantas”.

“To do otherwise will put aviation safety at risk,” Captain Loney said.

It could also have implications for Qantas’s proposed ultra-long-range Project Sunrise flights, which require a new agreement with pilots before going ahead.

Former federal senator Nick Xenophon, whose firm Xenophon Davis is providing legal advice to AIPA, said it was a “troubling process for Australian travellers”.

“It appears that CASA is protecting the commercial interests of airlines at the cost of genuine health and safety conditions,” Mr Xenophon said.

“We need to have faith in the decision-making process.”

A CASA spokesman said they were aware of AIPA’s concerns and were working through them.

He said the Qantas trial was due to end next month, after which CASA would consider the results in the context of the risk to aviation safety.

“Data gathered from this trial will enable informed discussion with relevant stakeholders as to potential fatigue risks,” said the CASA spokesman.

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

ASAP FRMS? - Apparently not when it comes to Cabin Crew - 

Via the Oz:

---

Cabin crew ‘forgotten by CASA’



FAAA international division secretary Teri O’Toole. Picture: Adam Yip


12:00AM FEBRUARY 14, 2020

 9 COMMENTS
Flight attendants say they are working up to 18 hours with just four 20 minute breaks because the regulator has failed to deliver a fatigue risk management system for cabin crew.


As pilots consider legal action against the Civil Aviation Safety Authority over a new system, the Flight Attendants Association of Australia is wondering what has happened to the regulatory protection for their members.

FAAA international division secretary Teri O’Toole said it appeared CASA had not allocated any resources to researching fatigue experienced by cabin crew — “aviation’s first responders”.

“It does appear from the FAAA’s interactions with CASA that they are now only listening to the airlines without any questions or scepticism, and are not willing to listen to the view of the frontline in passenger aviation,” Ms O’Toole said.

“An example of this is CASA’s decision to shelve a project to develop regulation to prevent cabin crew fatigue at the suggestion of the airlines.”

She said cabin crew were never included in the process that pilots experienced, with trials of a new fatigue risk management system not extended to crew members on the same flights.

“This is because there are no CASA regulations for cabin crew and we were not required to be considered,” said Ms O’Toole.

“The reality is that regardless of how well the pilots land in a non-routine situation, the responsibility shifts to cabin crew to ensure the safety of passengers who need to evacuate in these circumstances. It is imperative crew are at their peak level of alertness.”

She said for international cabin crew, a majority of the work patterns involved day flights out of Australia and overnight flights on return.

“On an ordinary 18-hour flight, a cabin crew member will only be entitled to 20 minutes of rest in the first six-hour period, and 20 minutes of rest every four-hour period after that. The total rest would be 80 minutes for 18 hours of work,” Ms O’Toole said.

A CASA spokesman said the regulator was satisfied that airlines were safely managing fatigue-related issues in all areas of their operations.

“At this point CASA is focused on the final steps of the transition to the new fatigue management rules for flight crew (pilots),” he said. “Once these are bedded down, CASA can consider other areas including air traffic controllers, engineers and cabin crew.”

He said CASA recently met with the FAAA.

A Qantas spokesman said the airline always focused on the health and safety of crew and managing fatigue, particularly when operating long international flights or multiple domestic flights.

---

From the (last recorded) CASA ASAP minutes??: ref - https://www.casa.gov.au/about-us/working...ember-2019 &/or https://www.casa.gov.au/files/asap-meeti...ember-2019 (Hmm..for some passing strange reason the CASA web link summary does not appear to match the actual PDF minutes, which were bizarrely amended more than 4 months after the September ASAP meeting -  ) 

5.3 Proposal to establish a TWG on Cabin Crew Fatigue

Mr Crawford proposed to establish a TWG on Cabin Crew Fatigue and noted that the proposal was
raised at the ASAP meeting on 22 November 2018. He informed the Panel that CASA has not formed a view on how Cabin Crew Fatigue should be managed, however he explained that Australia has an obligation to to meet its ICAO compliance responsibilities. Mr Crawford acknowledged that there is always an industrial factor, but also pointed out that in establishing the fatigue management rules (CAO 48.1) for Flight Crew all of the relevant stakeholders were involved i.e. airline operators, pilot associations and the regulator and he proposed adopting the same approach for developing the Fatigue Rules for Cabin Crew, Air Traffic Controllers and Maintenance Engineers. The ASAP discussed the relative priority of conducting a project on cabin crew fatigue when compared to other industry personnel, such as engineers and air traffic controllers. The Panel
also questioned whether there are matters of higher priority for CASA to explore considering the relatively low safety risk associated with cabin crew fatigue. There were also concerns raised about the cost of unnecessary regulation associated with this proposal.

This was the ASAP recommendation in regards to the possibility of establishing a TWG for a Cabin Crew FRMS...


Hmm...and when you look at the latest membership list of the ASAP why do I question the integrity of that particular ASAP recommendation? - FFS! 

CASA Aviation Safety Advisory Panel

• Prof. Pat Murray – Chair
  
  
  
• Adrianne Fleming – Founder and Operations Manager, Tristar Aviation
  
  
  
• John Gissing – Group Executive Associated Airlines and Services, Qantas
  
  
  
• Dr Reece Clothier – President Australian Association for Unmanned Systems (AAUS) and Global Airspace Integration Senior Manager Boeing NeXt
  
  
  
• Jim Davis – Chairman, RAAA
  
  
  
• Michael Monck – President, RAAus
  
  
  
• Ray Cronin – Founder and Managing Director of Kestrel, Chief Flying Instructor (Helicopter), current President of the Australian Helicopter Industry Association
  
  
  
• Graeme Crawford – CASA Group Executive Manager Aviation
  
  
  
• Rob Walker – CASA Executive Manager Stakeholder Engagement Division
  
  
  
• Stuart Aggs – Virgin Australia Group Chief Operations Officer
  
  
  
• Mark Thompson – Aviation Australia Technical Training Manager
  

  MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

Mick Mack releases regional aviation issues paper - 

Via Mick Mack on Twitter &/or FB: https://twitter.com/M_McCormackMP/status...5039893504 & https://www.facebook.com/MichaelMcCormac...671199374/

Michael McCormack
@M_McCormackMP

The Govt is seeking views on how to make regional aviation work even better for you.

Today we release an issues paper with submissions open until 17 April 2020.

The aviation industry offers significant benefits to regional communities & we want that to continue.
#RegionsMatter

Here is the Dept webpage for the issues paper:

Regional Aviation Policy Statement

The Australian Government is developing a comprehensive Regional Aviation Policy Statement in consultation with other Government, industry and community stakeholders.


The Statement forms part of the Government’s commitment to securing economic growth across regional Australia. It will canvass the roles of the different tiers of Government and industry in regional aviation, including the provision of aviation services and airport infrastructure, as well as opportunities for better coordination and efficiencies in aviation-related programs operating in regional Australia.

The Government has now released an Issues Paper to facilitate consultation on the development of the Statement PDF: 740 KB

Responding to the Issues Paper

The preferred method for receiving submissions is electronically via email. Submissions may also be made in hard copy at the address provided below.

The closing date for submissions is Friday 17 April 2020.

Link: https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviati...index.aspx

MTF...P2 

[Kharon]

36 pages –

(Advertorial). - To say what? Once you wade through the overarching condescension, eliminated the platitudes and the ducking obvious - and have finished with the bucket – what are you left with?

Aviation was always a ‘risky’ investment, a million bucks on the over night money market will keep you living very comfortably – a million invested in an aviation outfit will keep you awake at night. The staggering cost of having an Air Operator Certificate run through the approval process is enough to deter a smart investor, let alone the time and effort which is required to get an application over the line. Then of course, the real costs kick in – servicing the ‘compliance’ requirements.

This leads the unwary into a legal and operational minefield. But we all know this for fact.

Regional Aviation is a victim of government negligence – it is that simple. Successive governments have avoided their duty of care and responsibility by hiding behind the CASA skirts, holding hands and screaming ‘bipartisan’. Government ministers have allowed a regulator untrammelled power, without check, balance or audit. Successive governments have ignored, for three decades, clear warning from industry that the regulatory burden and the behaviour of the regulator is unacceptable and unsupportable. How many more times must this be stated – in clear language.

Aye, there’s non so deaf as them as don’t want to hear.

The ‘new’ placebo is just another scam – it will meet the same slow death the ASRR did at the hands of the same crew which created today’s monstrous pile of shit – known as the CASR; with government bipartisan blindness.

Got to dash – need the bucket – again. The obscenity and hypocrisy is overpowering.  (Retch).

Toot – toot.

[Kharon]

Shotgun’s – spray patterns.

It may seem like a strange title for a general post – but its where I find myself. Where to post? No matter where you look, there’s a pellet to be stuck in each target. The whole, wide ‘target’ of the aviation industry is speckled with ‘shot’. Big airlines, Regional airlines, charter, flight schools, maintenance: all under the pump. The whole lot – or; that what’s left behind. Top to bottom; proud national fag carrier to Mum and Dad flight schools – all wondering WTD happened.

Come May – Carmody’s part is to exeunt Stage Right, richer, fatter, protected and not even a whisper of shame to follow him as he slithers, unshriven, out of the back door. A good riddance I’d call it – but will he take his team of performing sociopaths with him? Will there finally be a serious shake up of the CASA board? Will the Senate finally, once and for all – put a full stop to the untrammelled power residually left behind? Will the minister have the balls to sack – out of hand – Aleck, Crawford etc. and all who sail with ‘em? IMO fair questions all – or; will the party continue - unabated?

We have now for over three decades watched (and monitored) Senate good intentions (despite the O’Sullivan interlude) being pissed on, ignored and contemptuously dismissed as opinion– mostly through a lack of ministerial ‘will power’. That alone accounts for 100 of the 200 pellets in a bird shot cartridge.

The ‘minister’ may well be looked to for leadership; this would be a fine, democratic thing. A Senate reprimand and ministerial report should galvanise a new minister into action. Upon realising that a national aviation industry is heading for the tip at a great rate of knots, one could (as the gods will) expect some sort of ministerial action. All we have seen from that quarter is gross participation and involvement in every seemingly dodgy deal being publically noted and publicised  – SOAR and Mildura for a start – before we even get into the ministers sanctioned version of ‘Melbourne’ (Essendon) and connections thereto.

School for Scandal is a comedy. The Harlot’s House (Wilde) is a much closer adaptation of stark reality. Whether he’s owned, innocent, drunk or just stupid matters not a whit. The current minister is technically and morally responsible for the collapse of not only the grass roots of aviation, but the entire charade being inflicted on the tax paying voters of this land. If he want’s ‘em (airports) off the books’, then just say so and flog off another lump of Oz to whatever overseas buyer wants it. What’s honesty? – look it up.

Shall we begin with the first draft of the real Essendon report, or perhaps wait for the ‘sanitised’ version and publically compare the two? We can and we will (thanks Uncle Sam). My crew prefer to wait – this is the same for Ross Air and several other reports which have been long in the making. Chameleon like, the work of investigators seems to be melded into the latest ‘edited’ garbage currently being provided. What happened to The truth, the whole truth and so help me!!  (insert preferred deity) 

Then we come down into the weeds. The beautifully manipulated schism between RaOz and AOPA devolves around aerodromes. T’is true. Many flight schools fell for the play and converted from CASA to RA. Seemed like a really good idea – at the time, probably still is if you look at the USA model – however. No matter what school of thought a flight school accommodates, no matter where: there is one item essential to their survival. No prizes – they need an aerodrome; reasonable rent, useable facilities and confidence that their tenure on that airfield can be maintained within the bounds of ‘reasonable’ cost.

“Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen six, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pound ought and six, result misery.”

And yet, at the bottom of every pile of money and photographs of ‘dubious-doings’ we find a happy snap of our minister. The battle to maintain the legislated rights of aerodromes seems to have been lost somewhere between the developers and council members prosecuting deals with, what seems to be, some very funny money (for example) . The Mayor of Mildura and the Swan Hill ‘maintenance base discussions’ seems to be a case in point. Smoke and Fire ? Yes/No. No harm, no foul, all Kosher – fair enough – but where’s the ministers proof of complete compliance with the letters (all of ‘em) of the law? Is proof required – YES. It bloody well is.

Too many targets I reckon for one round – happily the Purdy holds two. The second shot is the one for the pot. But if the flight schools and rural charter operators do not join forces, and soon; there will be very little in the way of runways or paddocks in which to conduct operations. Unite now; and, tell the graft ridden councils to get real; or, bugger off. Ministerial support, about now, would enhance credibility – big time.

Like I said, a shotgun spread pattern is required to stand a chance of clipping even one of these brightly lit birds on the wing. Conversely, up close, there is a chance to bag more than one bird. Just depends on where you stand – don’t it?

Toot – toot.

[Peetwo]

Rex leads the charge on Mick Mack assault -

Via the Oz:

Coronavirus: Rex to suspend nearly all domestic flights


ROBYN IRONSIDE
AVIATION WRITER
@ironsider

7:03PM MARCH 23, 2020


Rex is moving towards a total grounding of its fleet following new restrictions on domestic travel. Picture: AAP

Regional Express Airlines has led the charge in the latest round of airline cutbacks, announcing it will suspend all domestic services other than government-sub­sidised flights in Queensland.

The decision followed border closures in five states and government warnings for people to avoid any “non-essential travel”.

Other airlines, including Qantas and Virgin Australia, were continuing to review their schedules after previously announcing cuts of between 50 per cent and 60 per cent to domestic services.

In line with new measures announced by Scott Morrison, airport lounges were closed on Monday, and airport eateries reverted to selling takeaway food only, with tables and chairs packed away.

Rex deputy chairman John Sharp said the airline was supportive of the state and federal governments’ “strong measures” to reduce the spread of COVID-19, but said more financial assistance was needed to keep the airline ­flying.

Mr Sharp said the benefit to Rex of the $715m airlines assistance package announced last week was only about $1m a month, which was “grossly insufficient to cover the $10m a month we expect to lose”.

“If an assistance package of sufficient magnitude and viability can be negotiated by the end of the week, Rex may be able to reconsider its plans to suspend services,” Mr Sharp said. “Failure to achieve any traction in this regard will see regional communities lose their air services for many months.”

His sentiments were shared by the Regional Aviation Association of Australia, which urged the government to extend assistance for the industry.

Association chairman Jim Davis said small regional operators and privately owned flying schools did not have deep pockets.

“The effects of the current loss of business have already been devastating,” Mr Davis said.

“Many have only days or weeks left before they will collapse, so assistance is needed urgently to keep them afloat and preserve the jobs of their staff.”

He also urged the government to consider other measures such as a moratorium on loan repayments until the crisis had passed and introducing a US Chapter 11-style arrangement to allow businesses to keep operating without fear of being closed down by ­creditors.

On a global scale, the outlook was not looking any brighter for the aviation industry, with Emirates announcing a two-week suspension of all passenger flights, and Singapore Airlines cutting services by 96 per cent.

An Emirates spokeswoman said the temporary halt to flying was in compliance with a United Arab Emirates government directive for the protection of communities against the spread of COVID-19.

Singapore Airlines described the crisis as the “greatest challenge the group had faced in its existence”, adding that 138 of its 147 aircraft would be grounded until the end of April.

Sydney Airport on Monday was working through the scheduling impacts of the latest announcements by airlines and anticipated “a significant but temporary reduction in international and domestic traffic”.

Despite another turbulent day for the sector, Qantas and Sydney Airport shares closed up about 2 per cent, at $2.41 and $4.99 respectively. There was no such joy for Rex, with its shares crashing almost 20 per cent to 45c, an all-time low for the regional operator.

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

Flight training not shutdown - Yet?? 

Via AOPA Oz:

---

AOPA Australia CEO BENJAMIN MORGAN reports.
April 3, 2020 By Benjamin Morgan



During this past week, the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association of Australia (AOPA Australia) has received numerous requests from flight training school business members seeking clarification with respect to the Coronavirus COVID-19 restrictions.

AOPA Australia has today received advice from Senator Susan McDonald, on behalf of the Deputy Prime Minister, confirming that there are no specific restrictions or prohibitions placed on the operation of flight training schools, but notes that the COVID-19 situation in Australia remains fluid and the situation may change.

Flight training schools are reminded of the need for personal protective equipment and are urged to maintain strict transmission reduction measures at all times.

Flight training schools are also reminded of the need to remain up-to-date with their respective State Government and work place health and safety requirements.

Flight training schools seeking further information are invited to contact AOPA Australia CEO Benjamin Morgan – ben.morgan@aopa.com.au

---

Plus via Airspeed Aviation on Twitter: https://twitter.com/AirspeedAv/status/12...0682215424

Yesterday we received a call from the NSW Police stating that we were in breach of the Public Health Act and must cease flight training.
We received this from Senior NSW Police last night and confirmation this morning by email.

---

Although we are still operating Flight Training and charter, it is far from Ops Normal and rigorous medically-reviewed controls have been put in place from before you even enter the premises.

---

We have sent our protocols to every client and flying student, and trained all our staff on how to follow and enforce these greatly increased requirements.

---

In the meantime, we will continue to provide critical transport and education services to those clients who need us.

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

Industry MOS 138 concerns - 

Reference via the SBG: https://auntypru.com/sbg-03-05-20-10-dow...with-fury/

Ref: https://twitter.com/PhilHurst62/status/1…4060182528

---

Halle- bloody – lujah and Amen. Brilliant. Stellar. Wonderful. Finally, at long last; someone had the support (and balls) needed to tell CASA to bugger off. Ducking well done, Bravo, keys to the Tim-Tam cupboard. The real ‘experts’ in the field REJECT a CASA version of ‘how to’ and collectively stand up to say No-Way. Now how (finally) bloody good is that? How would thing’s have be different if all industry experts had banded together and said ‘No – unacceptable’ and made it stick. Part 61 a classic example, everyone moans and groans, but very few said NO this is a crock as being totally unacceptable. Bugger off and come back with a semblance of reality.  – Wonderful stuff – finally. 

And ABC Rural radio yesterday:

Heli-mustering industry raises safety concerns over proposed CASA changes

On NT Country Hour with Matt Brann
https://abcmedia.akamaized.net/radio/loc...hanges.mp3

The heli-mustering industry in northern Australia has raised concerns about proposed changes to the rules for aerial work.

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) is proposing a new Manual of Standards for Aerial Work Operations covering helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft, designed to address safety risks.

But several pilots have told ABC Rural they believe the changes would actually lower safety standards and could encourage rouge pilots to operate outside the rules.

Aviation industry veteran Mary Brown, from North Queensland Aviation Services, says there could be some far-reaching consequences if the proposed rules are enforced.

Duration: 13min
Broadcast: Wed 6 May 2020, 1:00pm

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

Industry MOS 138 concerns - Part II

Via FB: 

NQ Aviation Services
· 19 hrs ·

Today I received a response from Shane Carmody in relation to my request to suspend Part 138 and any new regulation, to give industry a chance to deal with and recover from COVID 19 or to extend the consultation period for Part 138 MOS. You can read his response for yourselves!!

---

And via AMROBA:

AMROBA Newsletter: Volume 17 Issue 04-5 (March-April 2020)

Contents

1. Recovery will be hard

Aviation will not be as it was for quite some time. Many of the older aviation experienced generation will not be around when it does recover. The path to recovery will have its effect on those experienced aviators who remain to assist the recovery. Recover we will, but it might be with new operators and organisations.

2. Safety, Innovation & Business Growth.

Properly written principle-based regulations and devolvement of powers for business to self-assess and grow is extremely important. By all means, cost effectively control the entry of a business into an aviation sector, but post that period, the growth of the business is the responsibility of the business and its accountable manager.

Government Policy are not Regulatory Impositions

Australians have an underlying distrust in government departments and agencies to implement Government policy and guidelines unless they are made a legislative requirement they must comply with and therefore accountable. Industry regulatory requirements makes industry accountable. Time these government entities joined the rest of Australians. These kind of government double-speak mean little based on the regulations and standards that reduces freedoms & increases regulatory burden.

Compare CASA’s latest CASR Part 138 Manual of Standards which has grown from 34 pages to 120 that sees the imposition of additional layers of bureaucracy, compliance and cost, with no obvious safety outcomes.

It belies reason that amidst a pandemic, an exceptionally difficult operational environment and period of uncertainty, that CASA has now seen fit to enter into a consultation period, 10 years in the making, allowing a five week window for Operators, under pressure to respond to regulatory information that has grown in excess of four times its original size, without clarity or reason.

Example: CASR Part 138 Consultation

What is even more concerning is the apparent disregard by CASA, of the recommendations of their Technical Working Group, as reported from their most recent meeting on 12th march 2020?

'Whilst not endorsing the MOS, the TWG acknowledges that it will need to go out for public consultation for CASA to receive broader industry feedback. The TWG also noted that the risk of conducting public consultation with the MOS in its current form is that respondents may find the MOS too complex to understand. The TWG recommended that the public consultation be structured in a way that will enable respondents to more easily provide feedback. It was also recommended that that the public consultation asks industry for feedback on aspects of the structure of the MOS'.

Quote from the CASA Website: Technical Working Groups may be established by the ASAP for referring specific issues within an industry sector, subject matter or domain for advice. CASA may also establish Technical Working Groups to provide us with input on specific technical issues and proposals. In these cases the ASAP will be requested by CASA to endorse the Technical Working Group so there is transparency in the collaborative work conducted by CASA and Industry representatives.

The Technical Working Group for Part 138 do not endorse the Manual of Standards that has now been published for consultation, yet CASA, despite looking to TWG’s for advice and guidance on industry specific issues, seems to be pursuing its’ own objectives.

This totally demonstrates that until government makes legislation that enforces the public services to follow their guidance, liberalisation will continue to be restricted by regulatory burden. The opposite to the government’s policy and guidelines.

---

MTF...P2 

[P7_TOM]

More to follow – probable. There's a 'buzz' going around that a heavy duty RAOz doyen has departed the fix. Could get really ugly out there – that's it from the rumour mill.

[Peetwo]

More to follow – probable. There's a 'buzz' going around that a heavy duty RAOz doyen has departed the fix. Could get really ugly out there – that's it from the rumour mill.

Via AOPA Oz on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/pg/AOPAaustralia/posts/

RAAUS CEO MR MICHAEL LINKE RESIGNS

Announced to members of the Recreational Aviation Australia Limited, 4th September 2020:

Some six years ago, Michael Linke joined our organisation to help us address some significant challenges that we faced at the time. These included a number of matters ranging from internal and procedural deficiencies through to relationship issues with the regulator and substantial financial problems that were threatening the viability of RAAus. Today, much of this has been addressed and we are on the cusp of accessing new privileges and transitioning to the new CASR Part 149 framework.

Michael has now been presented with a new opportunity outside of RAAus to further challenge himself and test his skills and knowledge in a new environment with new people. In some ways this is a sad day for RAAus as we will miss the steady approach that Michael has shown through the years but at the same time we also understand that this desire to grow both personally and professionally means that he has to explore his options. To this end, he has accepted a new position in a national organisation with responsibilities that extend beyond those he currently has at RAAus and will commence in his role towards the end of this year.

The staff and board at RAAus would like to pass on their thanks to Michael for the effort and energy he has put in during his time with us and are very appreciative of the turnaround that he has led and the stable organisation he will be leaving behind. Thank you Michael.

Whilst we are sad to see Michael leave we are also presented with new opportunities moving forward and will be starting the search for a new person to lead our management team through the next 5+ years and help guide us through the next set of challenges we face in that period. We anticipate that we will be putting a call out to members and the broader industry in the coming weeks to begin a dialogue with suitably skilled people to fill the gap that Michael will leave behind.

We wish Michael the best in his new endeavours and are very much looking forward to what the future brings for him and RAAus. We will have more news for members soon.

Michael Monck
Chairman

NOT A MEMBER? WE NEED YOUR SUPPORT!
Join today: www.aopa.com.au/membership
AOPA Australia | Your Freedom to Fly

Some comments - 

---

Nicholas Christie Michael, you have caused so much distress for so many people in the aviation industry in Australia. You are not an aviator. You have never understood what it is to be one. And you don’t understand or care about any other sectors or how they interact with ultralight class aircraft.

You have run the RAA without regard for the average member or the other sectors of the industry. You have bullied and unrepentantly barged your way through with scant regard for others and the while cozying up to the regulator in a sickening sycophantic attempt to gain traction.

RAAus is a part of our Broader aviation industry and cannot exist alone or inside a bubble. It has a place, certainly. But the way that you have run the ‘company’ has been to the detriment of members and to the benefit of the few.

I wish you well personally and from a health perspective, but I will watch you walk away from that place knowing that the sight of your back will be one that provides me and many RAAus members a great deal of relief, rather than happiness, or anything else positive.

Relief is certainly not the legacy that I would aspire to when leaving a position of responsibility from a member based organisation like RAAus.

Accountability, pursuit of the truth, and gaining the genuine trust of members is absolutely key in any member-based organisation like RAAus.

But, Mr Linke, you failed me and many others in our industry so often, and so grossly.

Now the challenge will be bringing these positive virtues to some of the remaining members of the board who share your vision and are just as culpable.

---

Lorraine MacGillivray I have never met Linke, and I am glad that I haven’t because I don’t like being in the company of self serving individuals that in my view run an organization like a little boys club. Not to mention I would have been far from polite.

What happened and is happening with the Bristell based on the evidence we have is nothing but a vendetta. We have been working on this since the beginning of this year. RAAus provided no support to BRM Aero. In fact they have been active in trying to discredit the aircraft. I mean the latest in my view is they put an article about the spinning of the Brumby high wing and on the next page write a story on the Bristell B8 in Sport Pilot based on no information no discussion with manufacturer or the importer and make it sound like it is falling short I would suggest under some false premise that they care about the Bristell.

The request for additional compliance data requested by CASA was on the back of a flight test done at Latrobe Valley in 2017. This was initiated by RAAus, this flight test was done to replicate the Clyde accident. They did not even use the same configured aircraft, different wing span different prop. Like comparing apples and pears. And for those not aware the Clyde accident was found by the Victorian State Coroner that the Bristell was not at fault. Darren Barnfield was at Latrobe we are told assuming a position of authority. This flight test was missing many things that would gain it any credibility at all. And I have it on authority from within RAAus they are already trying to cover this up. This less than professional flight test report made its way to CASA and Mick Poole emailed the report to the importer and clearly used it as the basis for asking the manufacturer for additional data to prove compliance. No one would accept all the information the manufacturer had provided. The Bristell completed in excess of 260 formally recorded spins during its testing. The manufacturer certified that the aircraft complies under the self certification that CASA are supposed to accept. CASA have stated they are not satisfied. But neither RAA or CASA have been able to provide evidence of why they are not satisfied. The evidence and information that I am in possession of will embarrass a lot of people and hopefully Linke going will be the beginning. In my opinion anyone decent sitting idle should speak up or get out before the cards start falling and they will.

The Bristell I would suggest is too good for some I think that would have an interest in it being discredited. That has been told to me as well.

This is far from over and I will not stop until it and those involved are exposed.

---

Ric Wilson Now to clean up the rest of GA and our airline cousins.

---

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

More to follow – probable. There's a 'buzz' going around that a heavy duty RAOz doyen has departed the fix. Could get really ugly out there – that's it from the rumour mill.

Via AOPA Oz on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/pg/AOPAaustralia/posts/

RAAUS CEO MR MICHAEL LINKE RESIGNS

Announced to members of the Recreational Aviation Australia Limited, 4th September 2020:

Some six years ago, Michael Linke joined our organisation to help us address some significant challenges that we faced at the time. These included a number of matters ranging from internal and procedural deficiencies through to relationship issues with the regulator and substantial financial problems that were threatening the viability of RAAus. Today, much of this has been addressed and we are on the cusp of accessing new privileges and transitioning to the new CASR Part 149 framework.

Michael has now been presented with a new opportunity outside of RAAus to further challenge himself and test his skills and knowledge in a new environment with new people. In some ways this is a sad day for RAAus as we will miss the steady approach that Michael has shown through the years but at the same time we also understand that this desire to grow both personally and professionally means that he has to explore his options. To this end, he has accepted a new position in a national organisation with responsibilities that extend beyond those he currently has at RAAus and will commence in his role towards the end of this year.

The staff and board at RAAus would like to pass on their thanks to Michael for the effort and energy he has put in during his time with us and are very appreciative of the turnaround that he has led and the stable organisation he will be leaving behind. Thank you Michael.

Whilst we are sad to see Michael leave we are also presented with new opportunities moving forward and will be starting the search for a new person to lead our management team through the next 5+ years and help guide us through the next set of challenges we face in that period. We anticipate that we will be putting a call out to members and the broader industry in the coming weeks to begin a dialogue with suitably skilled people to fill the gap that Michael will leave behind.

We wish Michael the best in his new endeavours and are very much looking forward to what the future brings for him and RAAus. We will have more news for members soon.

Michael Monck
Chairman

NOT A MEMBER? WE NEED YOUR SUPPORT!
Join today: www.aopa.com.au/membership
AOPA Australia | Your Freedom to Fly

Some comments - 

---

Nicholas Christie Michael, you have caused so much distress for so many people in the aviation industry in Australia. You are not an aviator. You have never understood what it is to be one. And you don’t understand or care about any other sectors or how they interact with ultralight class aircraft.

You have run the RAA without regard for the average member or the other sectors of the industry. You have bullied and unrepentantly barged your way through with scant regard for others and the while cozying up to the regulator in a sickening sycophantic attempt to gain traction.

RAAus is a part of our Broader aviation industry and cannot exist alone or inside a bubble. It has a place, certainly. But the way that you have run the ‘company’ has been to the detriment of members and to the benefit of the few.

I wish you well personally and from a health perspective, but I will watch you walk away from that place knowing that the sight of your back will be one that provides me and many RAAus members a great deal of relief, rather than happiness, or anything else positive.

Relief is certainly not the legacy that I would aspire to when leaving a position of responsibility from a member based organisation like RAAus.

Accountability, pursuit of the truth, and gaining the genuine trust of members is absolutely key in any member-based organisation like RAAus.

But, Mr Linke, you failed me and many others in our industry so often, and so grossly.

Now the challenge will be bringing these positive virtues to some of the remaining members of the board who share your vision and are just as culpable.

---

Lorraine MacGillivray I have never met Linke, and I am glad that I haven’t because I don’t like being in the company of self serving individuals that in my view run an organization like a little boys club. Not to mention I would have been far from polite.

What happened and is happening with the Bristell based on the evidence we have is nothing but a vendetta. We have been working on this since the beginning of this year. RAAus provided no support to BRM Aero. In fact they have been active in trying to discredit the aircraft. I mean the latest in my view is they put an article about the spinning of the Brumby high wing and on the next page write a story on the Bristell B8 in Sport Pilot based on no information no discussion with manufacturer or the importer and make it sound like it is falling short I would suggest under some false premise that they care about the Bristell.

The request for additional compliance data requested by CASA was on the back of a flight test done at Latrobe Valley in 2017. This was initiated by RAAus, this flight test was done to replicate the Clyde accident. They did not even use the same configured aircraft, different wing span different prop. Like comparing apples and pears. And for those not aware the Clyde accident was found by the Victorian State Coroner that the Bristell was not at fault. Darren Barnfield was at Latrobe we are told assuming a position of authority. This flight test was missing many things that would gain it any credibility at all. And I have it on authority from within RAAus they are already trying to cover this up. This less than professional flight test report made its way to CASA and Mick Poole emailed the report to the importer and clearly used it as the basis for asking the manufacturer for additional data to prove compliance. No one would accept all the information the manufacturer had provided. The Bristell completed in excess of 260 formally recorded spins during its testing. The manufacturer certified that the aircraft complies under the self certification that CASA are supposed to accept. CASA have stated they are not satisfied. But neither RAA or CASA have been able to provide evidence of why they are not satisfied. The evidence and information that I am in possession of will embarrass a lot of people and hopefully Linke going will be the beginning. In my opinion anyone decent sitting idle should speak up or get out before the cards start falling and they will.

The Bristell I would suggest is too good for some I think that would have an interest in it being discredited. That has been told to me as well.

This is far from over and I will not stop until it and those involved are exposed.

---

Ric Wilson Now to clean up the rest of GA and our airline cousins.

---

MTF...P2