[P7_TOM]

Industry gives tacit approval.

"CASA to carry on saving industry from itself. "

Hitch – “More cost, no apparent increase in safety. That is a situation that only bureaucracy could have achieved and only bureaucracy will maintain.”

Nearly a hole in one. A short put for Par. “More cost, no apparent increase in safety”. Not strictly true; another layer of bureaucratic ‘safety’ (circuit breakers) for CASA and their tame minister (client) has been added, less work for CASA to do by auditing the audit of the management layers. A lovely big fat buffer between a CASA operational approval and them as approved it – for free – at industry expense. Can’t blame CASA for trying it on; industry sat back and let it happen. Scared by the Bully’s; raped by sodomites; robbed by thieves and happy to allow it. Whinging in the lunch room ain’t protest dontyaknow. I say this industry has been trained to change their pants before CASA boots ‘em in the arse – lest the CASA boot becomes fouled on contact.

“That is a situation that only bureaucracy could have achieved and only bureaucracy will maintain.”

Many of the most infamous criminal operations had ‘protection rackets’ as a major source of power and income. So long as ministerial and political types need that protection then the scam will persist and flourish. You don’t think Al Capone achieved his position without some governmental and bureaucratic sanction – do ya?

It’s been time to ‘go to the mattresses’ for a long while now; it’s either shut up and put up; or an outright brawl. I can’t see many baseball bats being waved – so I guess it’s business as usual; pay up, shut up and all is well.

[Peetwo]

LMH on DUCK 149; Oshkosh 50th etc.. 

• 
  

The Last Minute Hitch: 19 July 2019
19 July 2019
Comments 0 Comments
    
– Steve Hitchen

And so Part 149 is launched. The concept of this regulation is not easy to comprehend, but here's the extremely bare bones of it. For nearly 60 years CASA has been allowing third-party organisations to administer specific sectors of aviation under exemptions to the rules. The rules state that CASA is the ultimate authority and has responsibility for all civil aviation activity in Australia, but under exemptions they were able to palm off some of that to organisations with the expertise to do it. We're talking about RAAus, the gliders, the parachutists, the balloonatics and several others. What Part 149 does is upgrade those organisations to approved self-administering organisations (ASAO); it removes the exemptions for those that go through the approval process. That's a huge step up. It means not only understanding the regs and the sector, but showing they can run their own bureaucracy complete with safety management systems, communication systems and everything else CASA demands. The award for the most outraged over Part 149 goes to AOPA. AOPA sees the whole thing as CASA forcing aviators to deal with a private company (the ASAO), which they say is unfair. AOPA believes that by issuing Part 149 approvals CASA is creating "powerful monopolies" backed by self-interest that are extended privileges that pilots and owners who stay under CASA administration are not. The most often quoted example is the disparity in medical regimes.

"...there's a school of thought that CASA has modeled at a lot of 149 on RAAus..."

Part 149 has been beset by the same problem that besets all other regulation to come out of Aviation House: CASA wrote it. Here's the paradox: CASA wants organisations to take on Part 149 for specialist sectors because they can'tdo it themselves. CASA has neither the expertise nor the resources to deal adequately with warbirds, gliders or balloons. Yet, knowing that, they have considered themselves expert enough to write the rules to govern something they don't understand. It is CASA's modus operandi to demand more bureaucracy not less, and this looks extended to Part 149. RAAus probably has the ability to take it on; indeed, there's a school of thought that CASA has modeled a lot of 149 on RAAus. The fear is that it might be too much for the smaller organisations to bear. According to the project documents, CASA plans to give organisations 18 months to transition, which takes us to the start of 2021. If no ASAO steps up, aviators wanting to continue their activity will be required to comply with the general aviation regulations. That effectively returns the industry to the starting point of one set of rules for all and having only CASA deliver administration, which CASA doesn't want. In that light, it might have been expedient for CASA to put as few obstacles in the way of ASAOs as possible. Honestly, 18 months is not a lot of time to put in place a private bureaucracy good enough to satisfy a regulator that has made bureaucracy a core competency. This is a space worth watching.

There's a huge 50th anniversary happening in the coming week. The papers are all full of Apollo 11, of course, but the other big 50th is that of Oshkosh. The EAA's Airventure moved from Rockford, Il, to Oshkosh in 1969 and has grown into the largest and most iconic fly-in and air show in the world. It's a Mecca for aviators and enthusiasts from everywhere and there's not a serious aviation company that would dare to not have a presence there. And this year it co-incides nicely with the Apollo 11 half-century as well; space flight has very close ties to aviation and so the two will sit very nicely with the crowd. Right now we are in the calm before the storm; the time when everything goes quiet until Oshkosh kicks off and the news delivery channel run wild. Expect some very interesting stories to come out of the USA next week.

He needs two and he has one of those. Matt Hall is making a last-gasp effort win the Red Bull Air Race World Championship. With the season cut to four races and no future beyond, Hall rightly surmised that he would need to win at least two of the four and finish on the podium in the other. He got his podium in Russia and last week took the first of the two wins needed in Hungary. Now to Japan in September, where Hall gets to make his great last stand. The mathematics are looking good. He's only five points behind the leader Martin Sonka, so that's what he has to make up. However, he's only 10 points ahead of the home-town boy Yoshi Muroya. Any of the three can win the championship provided they can get all the building blocks in place. It's a grand finale for the ages. It's just a pity we have to wait so long to find out how RBAR will end.

May your gauges always be in the green,

Hitch

Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/the-l...cSVZu6L.99

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

The Last Minute Hitch: 26 July 2019

Vale Mark Smith, Acts of parliament and the cost of a grounding, via the Yaffa:

When I first got started writing about aeroplanes, I knew how important it would be to be able to take my own photos. I had the camera, but did I have the skill? The best way to take great shots is to emulate the best. When it came to air-to-air photos, I got my inspiration from the work of two men: Rob Fox and Glenn Alderton. My aspiration was (still is!) to be able to take shots as good as theirs. When it came to ground images and environmental portraits, I added another name: Mark Smith. As a Herald-Sun photographer, Mark's skill with imaginative structure and lighting set me a target that I have never even come close to reaching. Sadly, Mark was killed in a pedestrian accident near his home on Tuesday evening, leaving a large hole in the aviation journalism community. Mark had also turned his hand to writing, first as an occasional contributor to Australian Flying, then as editor of Australian Pilot and later Sport Pilot. His work with the pen in the beginning was, to be frank, unexciting, but over the years it got incrementally better as he worked harder at the craft. It was a credit to his determination to produce the best work he could. A passionate character that always spoke up for general aviation, he could at times be awkward to work with as he held his ground on a position and a phone call could come your way at any time of the night. It was all a part of who he was and the station in life he strove for. You always knew where you stood with Mark Smith. My condolences go to Michelle and the rest of his family.

what confidence can we have that the provisions of the Act will be enforced?

The Civil Aviation Amendment Bill 2019 is back with the House of Reps. It got a good run in the Senate this week, with the Greens pushing the hairy old barrow of interfering with aviation safety as they sought to send the bill to a committee. The red seats mostly didn't agree. Victorian Senator Janet Rice put forward the theory that general aviation needs to be looked after, but we shouldn't be asking CASA to do it; rather, it was the job of parliament. Experience has taught me that fixing general aviation is not what parliaments do. Parliaments are there to bandy about legislation, not to actually do anything; that's the theoretical role of governments. And it is this government's stated position (supported by the ALP) that safety still gets the priority over the economics of regulation. Taking that into account, it's still very hard to see how amending the Act will help GA at all. Let me reinforce that the need to consider cost is already in a legislative document: the Statement of Expectations. If that is not being properly enforced, what confidence can we have that the provisions of the Act will be enforced?

A classic case emerged this week with CASA grounding all Airvan 8s after the parachuting accident in Sweden. The Swedish authorities expressed concerns that the aircraft may have broken up in the air, leading CASA to ground all GA8s for 15 days as a precaution. They lifted the ban five days later (kudos to them), but at what cost? When asked why they felt it was paramount to ground the GA8s when a recent spate of in-flight break-ups with C210s didn't draw that reaction, I was told "the difference is there is specific information available for the Cessna. At this stage there is only the general observation that the Airvan may have suffered an inflight failure." So we've grounded the aircraft type and caused economic strain based on a "general observation". Another general observation would show that in-flight break-ups are more likely to be caused by ageing fatigue, over-loading or misuse of the controls. The oldest Airvan 8 in the world has just turned 20; not old in a fleet with an average age nearing 40 and unlikely to be suffering from fatigue. Rapid elimination means that if the Swedish Airvan did break up in the air it is most likely an over-stress situation, something not likely to have an impact on every other GA8 in the world. With only one incident on the cards, what was it that made CASA think there was an issue that was an immediate threat to safety? It doesn't matter ... with safety as their priority, they may as well ground them all because the cost to the industry is of secondary concern to the regulator.

May your gauges always be in the green.

Hitch

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

---

Plus a comment:

Ian Tucker • 2 hours ago

Agree with Hitch on the Civil Aviation Amendment Bill 2019. Although it is encouraging that it received bipartisan support in parliament, sadly CASA will no doubt continue it's belligerent and destructive actions against General Aviation. What mechanism is there to ensure that the CASA bureaucrats follow the expectations of parliament? Maybe a quesion for Minister McCormack.

Choccy frog again for Hitch...

MTF...P2  

[Peetwo]

The Last Minute Hitch: 9 August 2019.

– Steve Hitchen


Last week I lamented the inability of the GA community to work together. Only a few days later came a timely example of the positive influence we can have when the cause is common. Pulling together, the Illawarra aviation community put the stoppers on the Tallawarra B power station. The developers of the station were required by the permit to show that there would be no risk to aviation safety by the gas plume, and more importantly, any report showing no risk had to have CASA's agreement. They didn't get it. The NSW RAPAC, with help from local aviators, declined to endorse a Danger Area as being sufficient to mitigate the risks from the gas plume. According to the planning permit condition, there must be no gas plume from any power station built in that location. A great effort from the local aviation community and kudos to CASA for seeing the safety issues through the fog of political imperative. I am not, however, naive enough to believe we have heard the last of this.

exactly when is it going to call them to account?

Both sides have been spruiking the merits of the Civil Aviation Amendment Bill like a town crier at a centenary celebration. It compels CASA to take into account economic impact when drafting regulation, but it's looking more and more like a placebo for the ills rather than a cure. The need to consider cost has been in the Statement of Expectations (SoE) for some years now, and through that time the aviation community has been further burdened with the exorbitant costs of Parts 61, 141 and 142. Part 135 is looking to be just as damaging. There is solid argument that these parts have not increased safety in any way and were introduced purely to align us with ICAO. So here's the point: if the government was not prepared to hold CASA to task over the crippling costs of these suites, exactly when is it going to call them to account? The recent Airvan grounding was really a big test. It cost, by operator estimates, $5-6000 per aeroplane per day. That might not be a lot of money to the government, but it is to operators who are struggling to get black ink on their balance sheets. The department has supported CASA 100%, saying safety must come first. Get used to those words, I suspect every time we point to the the SoE or the Civil Aviation Amendment Bill we are going to hear them come back at us. CASA wields the primacy of safety like a Scottish claymore, and I doubt anyone in the government has the political courage to take away their weapon.

Airservices is circling their wagons at the moment after a damning report into harrassment, bullying and intimidation did all but declare them extremely guilty on all counts. The North report recommends a formal inquiry, but points out that Airservices is likely to not co-operate because it would be tantamount to self-incrimination. The entire aviation community needs to stand up here and demand the inquiry go ahead. If Airservices is right and there is no culture problem, then the inquiry can only bolster their arguments. But if there is inherent bullying and harrassment going on then it needs to be rooted out right now. The services provided to us in the air are far too important to be stuffed around with. Controllers are our lone voices in the night, our guardian angels and regularly our best friends. We need them on their game every day, and having a background of intimidation on any level is not acceptable. Bring on the inquiry: it will get things sorted out one way or the other.

What a competition we have for you! FlightStore has put together a collection of great gear and offered it up to one extremely lucky newsletter reader. The pack consists of a MyGoFlight flight bag, Aviation Theory Centre logbook and seven-volume PPL/CPL theory book pack, a standard Part 61 licence holder, an ArmyTek Doberman torch and a Remove Before Flight key tag. That's a total value of $700. The competition will be open to all newsletter subscribers and those that sign-up especially for the competition. News on how you can win will be available soon, so keep an eye on your computer next Friday!

Nominations for the Wings Awards are now firmly closed. We'll be in contact in the next week or so if we need more information about your submission. Thanks to all those that put in the time to ensure that some very hard workers in the GA community are appropriately recognised.

May your gauges always be in the green,

Hitch

Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/the-l...Zt28y0k.99

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

The LMH: 16 August 2019.  


Via the Yaffa:

---

– Steve Hitchen


Visual flight into instrument weather has been resulting in tragedy after tragedy for as long as there have been aeroplanes and bad weather. And there will be a lot more of it given that it is often the result of a poor decision and pilots are probably going to continue to make poor decisions. Our regulators have even given up when it comes to taking preventative measures that actually work. This has never been illustrated better than this week's report into the Mount Gambier Angel Flight accident, where none of the ATSB recommendations address the VFR-into-IMC aspect and concentrate on management issues. As a result, even if all the recommendations were adopted fully, the impact on the next possible VFR-into-IMC will be negligible. Both the ATSB and CASA have plans to ramp-up education programs, but that's a nebulous solution to a clear and present danger. Every VFR pilot, whether wilfully stupid, neglectful or unlucky, is likely to stumble into IMC at some time in their career. It's what happens next that causes the accident. Unprepared and unarmed, the first action is too often panic, followed up by the next step, which is usually to wish they weren't there. The two hours of IF demanded during their ab-initio training is so obsolete and forgotten that it now has the value and currency of a brass razoo. If we demanded more IF hours and included IF currency in flight reviews, we might equip VFR pilots with enough skill to save their lives the day they do stumble into cloud. It's true that there is nothing we can do if a VFR pilot chooses to waltz into low murk, but in most cases they don't even have the ability to get themselves out if they do recognise their error. As it's obvious that all other methods of mitigation have failed, surely it's time to revisit what we teach pilots in the first place.

"..statistics don't fly aeroplanes, people do.."

The ATSB also recommended that Angel Flight consider using RPT as a primary option. This really was a fairly soft recommendation, but it came with the damning statement about the safety of private operations. There were no limiters on that recommendation, so it didn't say "use RPT rather than VFR" or "use RPT unless the pilot has an instrument rating". It stated boldly that RPT is safer than any PPL flying any aeroplane under any conditions. I have to call them out on this. There are CPLs floating around Australia that I wouldn't trust to fly a kite, and PPLs that will run rings around the average CPL in terms of knowledge and skill. To me it shows that perhaps CASA and the ATSB have little understanding of what it means to be a private pilot. They have both used the damned lies they call statistics to prove that private operations are more dangerous, but statistics don't fly aeroplanes, people do. There are right ways and wrong ways to fly aeroplanes, and each one of us regardless of status should be striving to fly the aeroplane the right way. If we do that, there is a fair argument to say that there is no difference in safety between a CPL flying a Bonanza VFR and a good PPL flying a Bonanza VFR. It is one of the more curious facts of life that we can use correct analytical techniques and proper paths of reasoning and logic to arrive at the wrong answer (refer the last Federal Election predictions) and I believe that's what's happened in this case. Regardless of the number crunching, it doesn't follow that being a pilot is unsafe just because they are a PPL, and that's what the ATSB has declared in this case. If the ATSB honestly believes this, shouldn't they be recommending that private operations be disallowed because they are dangerous?

Tyabb's popular biennial air show was canceled this week as a result of further local council demands. The council clearly has imposed unreasonable new demands, taking into account that nothing has changed since the air show they approved in 2018. The new flaming hurdles they want Peninsula Aero Club (PAC) to leap over have impeded the air show rather than enabled it. That is going to cost benefitting charities a lot of money, but the last thing the local council wants is to be blamed, so they point the finger at the aero club. Do they honestly expect people to believe that PAC canceled the air show out of spite? Remember, PAC has run many successful air shows at Tyabb and has developed a very slick and efficient way of doing it. If the new demands were reasonable and workable, the PAC team would have found a route through and the air show would be going ahead. This incident also leaves a very bitter taste in the mouths of PAC and all those who use the airport, because it places doubt on whether or not the council really intends to deal with the airport in good faith and significantly shortens the odds that the issue will have to be dealt with in the courts.

And just to show you that council's can be defeated by joint action, Central Coast Aero Club at Warnervale this week claimed victory in its battle with Central Coast Shire. The shire was trying to revegetate part of the runway, refused to permit clearing or trimming of trees and asking CCAC to "talk to the hand" when it came to renegotiating the usage agreement. In a council meeting this week, many supporters fronted up to put the airport's case and try to force the council to back down. It included a silent standing protest that clearly unnerved councillors and several speakers who told the story of Warnervale and its value to the community. In the end, the council voted to explore the vegetation issue more (using a lot of taxpayers money), but voted overwhelmingly in favour of fast-tracking the airport users agreement for CCAC and to try to get the minister to change the Warnervale Airport Restrictions Act to alleviate the need for a movement cap. This is a great win for CCAC, the local people and for general aviation as a whole. To everyone who spoke at the meeting in favour of the airport, I say well done.

May your gauges always be in the green,

Hitch


Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/the-l...o811SSpbyV.99

---

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

The LMH: 30 August 2019.  

Via Oz Flying:

---

– Steve Hitchen


Welcome to Square One. If we were to give it a name, it would be December 2013. Back then, the aviation industry was struggling under the weight of unreasonable regulation and punitive, illogical treatment of operators by CASA. Then came the Aviation Safety Regulation Review (ASRR), the positive response from the government, the Regulatory Philosophy, the Aviation Safety Advisory Panel and the minister's General Aviation Advisory Group. It was more progress than we had seen in years and grounds for rampant optimism. But now, almost six years later, we still have unreasonable regulation and punitive, illogical treatment of operators. Yes, welcome to Square One. It is a long road we have traveled, but it seems the entire journey is still ahead of us. The evidence lies in the treatment of Glen Buckley and APTA. The whole distressing saga is laid out in the pages of September-October Australian Flying. How can CASA approve a Part 142 company then send them a letter saying they are operating illegally? Despite regularly meeting with CASA people, asking for clarification and doing everything CASA asked, the regulator refused to lift a temporary operating restriction that prevented APTA from trading. Since then, Aviation House has shown reluctance to deal openly with the issue–interview requests from Australian Flying were declined and questions left unanswered–and is forcing Buckley to seek recourse through the legal system. That will cost money; money that Buckley hasn't got. APTA has set up a crowdfunding campaign to go back to war and at the moment it seems the swell of industry opinion is behind him. There are some in the industry that believe APTA was never legal, which helps only to make matters worse. If they are right, then why did CASA approve the Part 142 certificate, and if they are wrong, why did CASA take the action they did? This is worth taking to court if only to force the regulator to make a definitive statement on that issue alone. The problem is, CASA is in the wrong no matter what they say, and that's what they're trying to avoid having to do in public. It is an indicator that all the money and energy spent on trying to reform the way CASA relates to the industry has been completely wasted.

"we need to present the department with unassailable arguments"

It looks like the Federal Government is going to make good on its promise to spend money on regional airports. First announced in April this year, it looked like an election promise not worth a empty Mintie wrapper ... unless, of course, there was some form of miracle that returned the Coalition to power. Although the floodgates on the money have yet to be opened, it is expected that regional airports will be able to stick their hands up from late September and claim their chunk of the $100 million windfall. And some regional airports desperately need it. Funding shortfalls are the norm rather than the exception, and that make local councils very reluctant to upgrade their airports ... especially those in municipalities where the councillors see houses where runways now stand. As an industry, we should make sure this grant program is fully subscribed almost from the opening bounce. There is a lot of work that needs doing out there and, realistically, the $100 million represents a shortfall in itself, so we need to present the department with unassailable arguments for the most urgent projects. There is always a pervading fear that larger regionals with RPT with soak up a lot of cash in new security screening, new fencing and parking-lot projects when we really need upgraded runways, new lighting and new taxiways. In sum, if your local airport is desperately in need of a cash injection, start making plans for your submission right now!

In further progressive news, it looks like the answers to the future of maintenance training belong in the past. CASA has announced consultation on allowing engineering candidates to self-study for exams. This means they won't have to seek out Part 147 maintenance organisations, which were very thin on the ground. Something needed to be done; there is not an engineering house that I have spoken to who has not bemoaned the sad state of affairs in the maintenance community. As AMROBA has pointed out, there is still work to be done, but Executive Director Ken Cannane is cautiously optimistic that solutions are soon to be at hand. However, he points out that the solutions look remarkably like the system of training that once worked quite well, but was dropped in favour of new regulations that did nothing but clag the engineer pipeline.

It's Father's Day on Sunday, and if you're still stuck for something to buy Dad, we have the answer. We're offering 25% off an Australian Flying subscription as a Father's Day special. Obviously, this deal won't last and has only a very short time to run, so get in fast and enjoy your weekend without having to worry about what to get him anymore.

May your gauges always be in the green,

Hitch

Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/the-l...O68e1cC.99

---

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

The LMH: 6 September 2019.

Via Oz Flying -  :

---

– Steve Hitchen


Reading and analysing the Hansard from Wednesday's Angel Flight hearing is a four-coffee task. A lot of questions were asked, a lot of questions were answered, a lot of questions were not answered. What comes through very clearly are two things: CASA and the ATSB think they have it right and almost the entire bench of the RRAT committee thinks they have it wrong. This is a Goliath and Goliath battle between the established bureaucracies of CASA and the ATSB and the representatives of the people. It's a pardoxical battle in many ways. Politicians always come down on the side of needing to be seen to be doing something, but here they are grilling the ATSB and CASA; actions that appear to be a slap in the face to families bereaved by tragedy. Mind you, doing that is absolutely the right thing to do, but never a popular step for an elected representative to take. It says a lot about the esteem that Angel Flight and its crews are afforded in regional areas it was designed to serve. The general aviation community is likely to extract two weapons from the hearing transcript: that the ATSB did not talk to any Angel Flight pilots about pressure during the investigation and that the ATSB had no figures on how many times a pilot had canceled a mission themselves. Both of these issues drill deeply into the ATSB and CASA position that Angel Flight missions are less safe than normal private flights due to pressure, the justification for nearly every action taken this year on the matter of community service flights. If the figures show that a lot of pilots are canceling flights themselves, it shows that the pressure is not as intense as CASA and the ATSB have led us to believe. The battle goes on. We need it to. We can't be governed by organisations whose arguments are pulled apart so easily.

"..It's also unlikely that manufacturers will start churning out aircraft at the new 760-kg MTOW.."

It's time now for all of us to roll up our sleeves and get stuck into the issue of a weight increase for recreational aircraft. This is proving a devisive issue in general aviation and one of the murkiest due to a variable understanding of what it means. The main proponent is RAAus and their initial supporting pillar was that an increase to 760 kg would make it easier for home-builders because they could build stronger aircraft with better designs rather than skimp here and there to squeeze under the current 600-kg limit. An MTOW increase means that things like C150s could now be registered with RAAus as well as homebuilts. What it does not mean is that you could now load-up your 600-kg MTOW LSA to 760 kg and fly it legally. If the aircraft isn't certified to 760 kg at least then you're stuck at the limit you're at now. It also doesn't mean that you can now do your own maintenance on your C150 if you move it to numbers registration; aircraft in the new category would keep their existing maintenance regimes. It does mean you could now fly it without a CASA medical. It's also unlikely that manufacturers will start churning out aircraft at the new 760-kg MTOW. In many cases that will mean a complete redesign of spars and landing gear components. Right now, their aeroplanes are performing quite well in the markets they are in and resdesigns cost dollars. Most interesting about the discussion paper released this week are the FAQs at the end. It seems CASA has gone on the front foot and used the FAQs to smash back political questions. Whilst there are factions in GA that are attempting to entangle politics with this issue, I wouldn't have thought a discussion paper on regulatory change was the place to address that. Better it would have been to use the FAQs to answer questions that are likely to be asked frequently.

This weekend Matt Hall has to fly like he's never flown before. His last chance at a Red Bull Air Race World Championship has arrived, and he will need to pin back his ears and go like hell to get the better of Muroya and Sonka, both past champions. But after the Lycoming starts to rumble on race day, Hall has to forget all that. It's a race like every other: there are lines to be flown, a track to be covered, pylons to negotiate and vertical turns to ace. Hall's mantra since he first started in the competition a decade or so ago has been to fly clean, fly well and let the others do what may. Hold fast to that and he's in with a real chance this weekend. Can he do it? Damned straight he can! This is the final ever round of RBAR and it's a race that will go down to the last turn of the propeller. Tune in if you can ... it's going to be a blinder!

May your gauges always be in the green,

Hitch

Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/the-l...fICDZW7.99

---

MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

LMH: 11 October 2019

Via the Yaffa:

---

Accusing politicians of political interference with each other is a bit like accusing a football team of deliberately disrupting the opposition team's ability to score. It's basically what they exist to do. Oddly enough, I find myself in the position to have to make that very accusation in the lee of the RRAT report into the ATSB's report into the Angel Flight crash at Mount Gambier. Somehow, an inquiry into the ATSB resulted in recommendations that had nothing to do with the reason the inquiry was called. Ironically, in doing so, the RRAT has committed the same crime that they were investigating. Just as the ATSB investigated a pilot's actions and found against Angel Flight, so the RRAT has investigated the ATSB and found against CASA. As the matter was self-referred to the Senate, there are no terms of reference, leaving the RRAT to conclude whatever they want. I am going to speculate now. "Aviation safety" are two words no-one likes to hear raised in either the red room or the green room because it can only make powerful people look bad. I suspect those people may have pressed the RRAT into making a couple of wishy-washy recommendations and ignoring the bare-bones problems that this whole saga has exposed. I would demand an inquiry into the inquiry, but from where do we get the confidence that the outcome would have any integrity?

Using the ABS classification brings up some anomalies

After a couple of false dawns, the Regional Airports grant program will open on 24 October. This promises $100 million in upgrade funds for regional airports that are desperately in need of it. It's a boost for the industry as it should encourage airport operators in the regions to seal or re-seal runways and taxiways, install lights and build fences; projects that were otherwise outside their financial capability. The kicker is that the government will provide only 50% of the money, so the operators and owners will still need to find the available dollars to fund the shortfall. It also raises the question about what is "regional" and what is not. The government is using the Australian Bureau of Statistics classifications of Inner Regional and Outer Regional, but a close examination shows that in terms of aviation, that may not be the best measure. Using the ABS classification brings up some anomalies: in NSW, [b]Cessnock[/b] is eligible to apply but [b]Maitland[/b] is not. The border between the Inner Regional and Major City classifications runs between the two. In Victoria, [b]Coldstream[/b] Airport is eligible, but [b]Lilydale[/b] is not. With the Remote Airports Upgrade Program (RAUP) the airport has only to service a remote area to be in the running for funds, but that has not been extended to the Regional Airports Program, where the airport must be located in the region. [b]Gawler[/b] in SA is a case in point: it services the Inner Regional [b]Barossa Valley[/b], but is itself classified as Major City. Sorry Gawler, no money for you.

There is a bit of a stink beginning to waft out of the [b]Northern Territory[/b], and it is coming from charter operators incensed over the Royal Flying Doctor Service's move into commercial charter operations. Existing charter companies are viewing this as an unfair advantage because the RFDS is at heart a charity that gets a large amount of its funding from the general public. The actual depth of the ire is not easy to gauge and the argument itself is riddled with holes. Firstly, should any charity be allowed to run a commercial operation? The general answer to that is probably "yes". If a charity can get funds from an alternate source to ease the burden on the giving public, then I don't see a problem with that. The reality is that it happens all the time. Secondly, would existing charter operators be as dirty if another large company started ops in their prime market? The answer to that is also "yes", but they wouldn't be screaming "unfair" quite so loud. The way I look at it, the danger is that the RFDS charter operation could end up running at a loss and needing to draw on money given by the public to sustain it. We've all been fined in an outback pub for some nefarious "crime" and we pay our dues to the RFDS in good spirit. I suspect that spirit would turn dark if it was known the money was going to prop-up a charter operation running under the red line.

AOPA Australia's call for harmonised regulations across GA and recreational aviation is an astute one. It speaks to both politicians and bureaucrats in a language that they better understand and are probably more prepared to work with ... theoretically. Frustrating though it may be for GA, CASA doesn't want harmonised regulations because it is the very disparity that allows them to divest administration to the sports bodies. There is recognition in Canberra that some aviation sectors would be regulated into the ground if they were still administered by CASA, so the freedom and quasi-autonomy enjoyed by ASAOs is the reason why some sports aviation still exists. In the case of RAAus, CASA sees it as a way of permitting recreational aviation with lesser standards without being accused of reducing safety, something their bosses inside Captial Circle have trouble swallowing (see also first paragraph this column). If CASA was forced to harmonise the regulations, they would have to apply the more stringent rules, not the less stringent ones. That does not mean that AOPA's call for harmony is not valid; it has a lot of merit, but harmonisation presents more problems for CASA and the department than it solves.

The Australian Aviation Hall of Fame is inducting two men next month that have slipped severely under the aviation history radar: [b]James Bennet[/b] and [b]Walter Shiers[/b]. You probably won't know of them; their names were never up in lights. These two men accompanied the storied Smith Brothers, [b]Ross and Keith[/b], on their legend-building Vicker Vimy flight to Australia in 1919. Ross and Keith were knighted. Jim and Wally got some military decorations and a bit of promotion. It was echoed years later when [b]Charles Kingsford Smith[/b] and [b]Charles Ulm[/b] tried to sweep under the carpet their American traveling companions [b]Jim Warner[/b] and [b]Harry Lyon[/b]. Along with [b]Nigel Love[/b], the man who founded what is now [b]Sydney Airport[/b], Bennet and Shiers will finally get some recognition of the part they played in Australian aviation history. They will be inducted into the AAHOF on 16 November at a dinner in Anzac Hall at the Australian War Memorial in [b]Canberra[/b]. And it's not before time.

There will be no Last Minute Hitch next week, nor Australian Flying newsletter for that matter. I will be totally immersed in Ausfly and have been active with my highlighter on the seminar program, which won't leave me time to a good job with the news. Instead, look for The Last Minute Hitch and the newsletter on Monday 21 October. We should also have some good material out of the Ausfly weekend for you also.

May your gauges always be in the green,

Hitch

Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/the-l...6sX27mK.99

---

MTF...P2 

[thorn bird]

"There is a bit of a stink beginning to waft out of the Northern Territory, and it is coming from charter operators incensed over the Royal Flying Doctor Service's move into commercial charter operations. Existing charter companies are viewing this as an unfair advantage because the RFDS is at heart a charity that gets a large amount of its funding from the general public. The actual depth of the ire is not easy to gauge and the argument itself is riddled with holes. Firstly, should any charity be allowed to run a commercial operation? The general answer to that is probably "yes". If a charity can get funds from an alternate source to ease the burden on the giving public, then I don't see a problem with that. The reality is that it happens all the time."

Err, scuse me, but charities pay no tax, I understand no GST either, receive concessions against air nav charges, nor pay import duty on parts and I believe substantial concessions against fuel excise.
I have heard their operating costs are substantially less than a legitimate commercial operator because of these "concessions".

They are incredibly aggressive when lobbying for commercial contracts, especially government tenders.

I don't believe "commercial" operators would have an argument if there was a level playing field, but there aint, as evidenced by the very high number of commercial contracts awarded to "Charities". One could suspect in reality corporations masquerading as charities.

What next, charity airlines? Wow imagine the top exec's bonuses.

[Peetwo]

A belated LMH: 21/10/19

Via the Yaffa...

---

– Steve Hitchen

The engines are still cooling down on Ausfly and there's still a lot of talking to be done, but the general opinion I got was one I absolutely expected even before turning a wheel north: there's no room in GA for two separate national fly-ins. Ausfly and AirVenture are beasts of different natures and that may be one of the great sticking points in getting them back together. AirVenture is more commercial and therefore vulnerable to the usual economic forces that most air shows have to find away to either tackle or side-step. Ausfly doesn't have an attendance charge and exhibitors were expected only to make a donation. The words in my ears are that both shows were not exactly caberets when it came to showcasing the industry to the public, but that Ausfly can better cope with fluctuations in attendance (and the weather will always make sure that there are fluctuations) than AirVenture can. Perhaps the point most impressed upon me was that people are definitely reluctant to support both and next year, like this year, will have to hand a rose to one or the other.

"they banded together to make sure commonsense was beaten down"

Last Thursday the senate voted down the Centre Alliance's disallowance motion on CASA's Angel Flight restrictions. Ever since the AGAA summit in Wagga Wagga last year the coalition and opposition has said they will take a bipartisan approach to aviation safety and this vote showed that in action: they banded together to make sure commonsense was beaten down. It was only Nationals Senator Susan McDonald who crossed the floor to vote with the independents, but it needs to be pointed out that the other three Nationals senators didn't stick their hands up for either side. Missing also were some other senators who have history of taking up the cudgels for GA. So, did all these absentees just not vote or were they not in the senate that day? Here's some scurrilous speculation to muse about over coffee. Did those senators prefer to completely abstain over the vote rather than cross the floor and be scalded by the steam coming out of their Leaders' ears? With the who-cares-about-aviation majority from both the left and the right obeying those who pre-selected them, aviation needed greater support from those on the major parties that understand the truth. The loss of this vote gives the impression that only the "lunatic fringe" cares about aviation. The real story is that aviation also has supporters on the lunatic left and the lunatic right; they were just missing on the day.

AOPA's Ben Morgan was unusually up-beat about progess on regional airports at Ausfly. Those airports owned by councils have been under crucible-like pressure in the recent past with many threatened with closure or being subject to sudden, significant rises in fees and charges. According to Morgan, AOPA has learned how to deal with the councils and found a way to show them how to keep their runways. The secret, he says, is that councils generally have no aviation experience and really don't understand that there are options for airports other than adhereing to CASA's rules on registered or certfied airports. The problem with downgrading regional airports to ALAs is that you can now forget your aspirations about getting a regional air service. For those country towns that will never support RPT, the downgrade to ALA status is a logical step. For the others that have RPT or are agitating to get one, keeping the airport registered or certified is crucial: airlines hate landing on goat tracks and hate the goats that use them. But with RPT comes the cost of security, terminals and associated infrastructure that RPT income rarely covers completely. It is to the private owners and hangar lessees that the airports turn to make up the shortfall. Right now there is no answer to that one, and if one is not found soon, I can see a future where the private owners will have to decamp to the ALAs and leave the major regional airports to the airlines. If AOPA has a panacea for that one, I will be very impressed indeed.

It is understandable if people don't understand the AOPA/SAAA/AGAA stance on the RAAus weight increase. In short, they have stated they oppose the weight increase for RAAus whilst happy for RAAus to be able to administer aircraft of higher weights. Getting in behind this, what they're saying is that what has been put forward in the CASA discussion paper is short-changing the industry, and they'd rather have a complete revamp of the rules across all GA than just concede on the weight increase now.. Whereas RAAus is looking to take baby steps AGAA wants to start with the long jump. However, I feel in doing so, AGAA has handed CASA a reason to ignore them. At this point in time, CASA has on the table only a weight increase and nothing else. SAAA said they have objected to that, but AOPA, rather than tick one box or the other, has drawn their own box and ticked that. Has AOPA surrendered their right to have a say, something that might come back to bite them later on? CASA, being a bureaucracy, is likely to get all bureaucratic, and unable to find a box to put the AOPA submission in, might just put it in the round one.

Just a short personal note of support for the mainstream media outlets that today have started their campaign on media rights. It's obvious that something needs to be done to stop the government putting stronger clamps on investigative journalism in the name of national security. Australia has become a nation of secrets, with bureaucratic agencies acting as sentinels to protect themselves and the public images of the politicians. Using the excuse of "security", journalists all over the country are facing a censorship campaign from the government not seen at this level since the end of the Second World War. Even the Freedom of Information Act is being abused as more and more agencies are using obscure excuses allowed in the legislation to refuse to disclose information. I was recently exposed to this as CASA redacted a heap of information in documents supplied to Glen Buckley in his battle with the regulator. In fact, the documents were 100% redacted because CASA considered them subject to legal privilege. This is a very thin excuse designed, I believe, to limit embarrassment to CASA. Apparently it is far more important that we do that than adhere to one of the keystones of democracy: the right of the people to know what there elected representatives and the paid bureaucrats are really doing.

May your gauges always be in the green,

Hitch

Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/the-l...Bccwg6z.99

---

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

The LMH: 25 October 2019

Via the Yaffa: Rift language, senate language, training language and Funflight is in the air.

---

– Steve Hitchen

When you write anything for public eyes you have to accept that there will be times that people won't like what you've said. If you're not prepared to take the brickbats then you're best to pack up your Olivetti, grab your Bogart hat and head out the door. This happens to me regularly and I've developed a strategy: before doing anything, ask yourself if the person is right. I got a call this week that amounted to respectful criticism of my LMH last week in which I called AirVenture Australia "RAAus-motivated." The caller said they'd had enough of people talking about the rift in GA and language like that was only making the divide larger and doing nothing toward healing wounds. So, time to roll out the strategy: was the caller right? Does talking about it only make it worse? Too much talking is often the by-product of inaction. Nothing happens so we try to use discussion to inject energy into the issue. Once the ball is rolling, we re-focus ourselves on the next problem at hand and use conversation to put energy into that argument. So far, I'm not seeing much action on healing the rift within general aviation and people are still coming to me wanting to talk about it; it was one of the prime topics at Ausfly. But I am not prepared to label the caller as "wrong"; there is merit in the argument. However, actions speak louder than words, so if we just did something concrete about uniting the industry the talk would fade away naturally.

"..McDonald looks prepared to put her feet where her mouth is.."

I don't remember anyone in parliament articulating the CASA problem so comprehensively as Senator Susan McDonald did last week. In an eight-minute speech, she said CASA was extraordinarily disconnected from reality, that it doesn't display a desire to act on collaboration or consultation, imposes regulation for the sake of it and imposes regulation that is costly, unreasonable and seeks to strangle aviation. It was cathartic to hear it expressed in the senate in terms that all of aviation can relate to. And McDonald is clearly prepared to back up her words, crossing the floor against the wishes of the Coalition she serves to side with the independents as they tried to have CASA's community service flight regulations disallowed. McDonald looks prepared to put her feet where her mouth is. The question all of this has brought to mind is "what now?" OK, we've a new superhero in the senate, but being a Nationals senator it's her boss who's in charge of CASA and probably arranged for the bipartisan support that sunk the disallowance in the first place. Is Senator McDonald prepared to march into the minister's office, take off her slipper and smack it up and down on his desk in a very Khrushchevian way? That's not likely to happen and could actually be counter-productive. Another option might be to start agitating for more inquiries; also pointless given that so many of them have been ignored or failed to have the desired impact. For all the will of Senators like McDonald and Patrick, the brick wall built by a lack of political will may be too high to climb over and too strong to break through, leaving a long and winding road around the wall as the only path ahead. We can only hope that general aviation has the endurance to make the journey.

McDonald slams CASA over Angel Flight Rejection

25 October 2019
Comments 1 Comment




Senator Susan McDonald addresses the senate over CASA's rejection of the RRAT recommendation on Angel Flight maintenance requirements. (still from Parliament House feed)

Queensland Nationals senator Susan McDonald has slammed CASA for refusing to adopt a recommendation from the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport (RRAT) to wind back new maintenance regulations imposed on Angel Flight operations.


Senator McDonald chaired an inquiry into the conduct of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau's (ATSB) investigation report on an Angel Flight crash at Mount Gambier in 2017, which CASA used as a basis for introducing new restrictions on aircraft and pilots used Angel Flight.

The inquiry made two recommendations, one of which was to remove additional maintenance requirements for the aircraft.

Senator McDonald told the senate last week that CASA had rejected the recommendation.

"I have long believed that regulation of any industry should be outcomes based, it should be effective and it should be reasonable," McDonald said. "There should be transparency of the clear connection between the problem to be solved and the legislative solution.

"CASA has not accepted the unanimous recommendations of RRAT to reject the additional maintenance requirements, which once again adds cost to an increasingly unfinancial sector. The requirement for the additional maintenance was not able to be demonstrated by CASA, either in its written submission or in appearing before the committee.

"Indeed the idea that this was only a small increase to costs fundamentally demonstrates the extraordinary disconnection between this regulating body and the reality of life and services available in regional and remote Australia, the very places that rely on Angel Flight.

"In taking this course of action, CASA doesn't display a desire to act on collaboration and consultation and shows refusal to accept commonsense reform. This lack of understanding of the gradual and relentless increasing cost and regulation on the aviation industry with no demonstrable link to safety improvement other than using a precautionary principle concerns me enormously."

Senator McDonald went on to say that she believed CASA's position would negatively impact Angel Flight to the point that people in rural and regional Australia would be disadvantaged.

"As a resident of this huge outback country, there could be much [sic] services if only aviation was affordable for general aviation and charter businesses," she said.

"CASA's proposed regulatory changes would not have prevented the June 2017 accident, and with no reference to additional maintenance requirements in the ATSB report, it is hard to understand [to] what end CASA has made the change, not to mention the fact that CASA's approach risks driving pilots out of the Angel Flight service, which is so critical to Australians living in rural and remote areas.

"It is painfully apparent that CASA imposes regulation simply for the sake of it.

"I'm here to tell you that I cannot and will not support a report that clearly examines the evidence, examines the challenges for regional and remote Australia and the challenges for the aviation industry and stands by while CASA once again imposes maintenance requirements that are unreasonable, that are costly, and once again seek to strangle opportunity and aviation in this country.

"Regulations need to be strict, but not so strict as to strangle, and I believe Angel Flight will be strangled by these proposals."
Senator McDonald crossed the floor last week to vote with the independent parties in favour of Senator Rex Patrick's motion to disallow the CASA restrictions. She was the only member of the Coalition to do so and the only National to vote. The motion failed to get up because of collaboration between the Coalition and the ALP.

"This is not voting against government," she explained, "this is voting against an instrument that was created by an independent statutory authority that is slowly crippling our aviation industry."

Fellow Coalition senator Slade Brockman from WA agreed with McDonald on the issue of maintenance, but did not participate in the vote against the disallowance motion.

"I didn't disagree with all the regulations ... the one I found difficult to accept ... was the requirement for additional level of aeroplane maintenance," Brockman told the Senate. "If I'm the owner of a particular aircraft and that aircraft is safe enough for me to take my friends up in; safe enough for me to take my children up in, has met the requirements of being considered a safe aircraft for the purpose of general aviation in Australia, then I see no reason to add on to that a further maintenance requirement that risks more people leaving general aviation.

"Additional maintenance requirements are not something just to be shrugged off. Pilots take them seriously; they have to be taken seriously.

"I did agree with large parts of the regulation. As such I did not support Senator Patrick's disallowance. It's a very blunt instrument, a disallowance. Unfortunately it means you knock out everything, you literally [sic] throw the baby out with the bath water.

"I will continue to monitor this area very closely and look to see if the regulations as promulgated do have a negative impact on that sector."

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

Last night I attended a forum on flight training organised by the Australian Division of the Royal Aeronautical Society, which had all the levity of funeral. Speaker after speaker outlined problems insurmountable that have placed the flight training industry in the Catch 22 position of being unable to train enough pilots to fill a growing demand and the industry subsequently hitting a downward slide to oblivion. It's not for a lack of schools, or even government money (there's plenty of that being thrown at students), but an arterial blockage in the instructor pipeline. The voracious appetites of the airlines have them gobbling up both newly-qualified CPLs, ATPLs and the people who taught them, leaving so very few to teach, and those that do are at the inexperienced end of the spectrum, not the end with thousands of hours. Compounding that is that the new Part 61 rules require instructors to have separate approvals for teaching most flight activities and endorsements, which costs money that instructors don't have because they're paid so badly. Although the forum didn't result in any official position of the RAeS, there were virtually no speakers who had answers. It doesn't bode well for the years ahead, and there is a very real possibility that Australia, rather than tapping into overseas sources of students, will actually have to export CPL candidates because there'll be no-one left to teach in this country.

Tomorrow is one of the metaphorical bright days on the general aviation calendar: Funflight. All over the country pilots will be giving up their time and money to give underprivileged and sick children what could literally be the ride of their lifetime. When the general aviation community puts in like this it makes me proud to be a part. Hundreds of children will be smiling broadly tomorrow because of us, and that's something we can treasure. That's if the weather co-operates of course! South of the Murray River the atmosphere is building to something Wagnerian, which it is threatening to visit on the southern states tomorrow and Sunday. We can hope only for enough breaks in the showers and overcast to at least create some smiles even if we can't run the full program of flights. Happy flying to all Funflighters out there.

May your gauges always be in the green,

Hitch

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

---

Finally from the Northern Daily Leader:

---

OCTOBER 24 2019 - 4:26PM

Air safety regulator must consider costs

• Marnie Banger
  
  

The general aviation industry raised concerns about the costs associated with new regulations.

Australia's aviation safety regulator will have to take into account the cost of making rules, under laws which have cleared federal parliament.

The shift comes after the general aviation industry raised concerns about the costs sometimes associated with fresh regulations.

Legislation making the change to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority passed the lower house on Thursday, after clearing the Senate in July.

"The Australian government is very conscious of the challenges faced by small business in Australia, and the need to remove unnecessary costs and regulatory burden," assistant minister Andrew Gee told the chamber on Thursday.

"It is important that we continue to support an aviation industry which is dynamic and sustainable."

Mr Gee insists safety in the industry will always be the most important consideration.

Labor backed the change, believing it strikes the right balance between keeping people safe and address the concerns of the aviation sector.

"While we understand that there will always be groups that say the balance is completely wrong one way or the other ... on balance, we are supporting this bill," Labor MP Catherine King told parliament.

Some commercial pilots had feared the changes could lead to weaker safety standards in favour of profits, but smaller industry players backed the bill because it aims to reduce costs.

Australian Associated Press
From the Hansard:

BILLS

Civil Aviation Amendment Bill 2019

Second Reading

Mr GEE (Calare—Assistant Minister to the Deputy Prime Minister) (16:01): I present the explanatory memorandum to this bill and move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Australian aviation is an essential part of our economy. It links our regions to our cities, and our cities to the world.

A strong aviation industry requires continuous improvement in the regulatory system which governs it. While Australia has an enviable record in aviation safety—built on a modern regulatory framework—any regulator must continue to keep pace with the industry it regulates.

Some sectors of the general aviation industry are seeking assurance that CASA takes into consideration the economic and cost impacts on industry, and the relative risk environment in the different aviation sectors, when developing broadly applicable aviation safety standards.

The Australian government is very conscious of the challenges faced by small business in Australia and the need to remove unnecessary costs and regulatory burden.

We are committed to aviation safety being the most important consideration in safety regulation and recognise that CASA must be allowed to ensure aviation in Australia is safe and reliable.

Costs and risks are both carefully weighed by CASA when it develops aviation safety standards. The requirements behind this process are spelt out in the government's statement of expectations issued to the CASA board.

Today I introduce into the parliament a bill that incorporates those guiding principles from the government's statement of expectations into the Civil Aviation Act 1988.

The Civil Aviation Amendment Bill is in direct response to the concerns raised by the general aviation industry.

The bill will allow the government to ensure CASA continues to consider the economic and cost impact on individuals, businesses and the community. It will take into account the differing risks posed by those sectors when developing legislative aviation safety standards.

It is important we continue to support an aviation industry that is dynamic and sustainable, with a regulatory system that is responsive and proportionate to risks. The government seeks a level of regulation that maintains the safety of the system without unreasonably restricting innovation and growth.

I commend this bill to the House.

CATHERINE KING (Ballarat) (16:04): The opposition has a very proud record of bipartisanship when it comes to aviation safety. There are, frankly, no margins for error when it comes to aviation safety. As more and more travel, freight movement and recreation is undertaken in our skies, it is important that our aviation safety system keeps people safe. At the same time, Labor understands that the viability of the general aviation industry can be jeopardised by unreasonable regulatory burden.

We understand the importance of the aviation industry in the day-to-day lives of Australians, and this is nowhere more the case than in regional Australia. We also understand that some members of the general aviation sector have raised concerns about red tape and the impact on their operational costs, and the viability of the general aviation sector and jobs in the general aviation industry. Clearly, the regulatory burden that small airline operators in general aviation can carry is vastly different to what can be carried by the larger airlines. If we as legislators don't get that right it could have unintended consequences for the smaller operators and, by extension, regional communities and aviation sector jobs.

We are broadly satisfied that this bill the government has brought forward does take a balanced approach between the need to protect the safety of the travelling public as the pre-eminent operating reason for CASA's existence—it's primary operating order, in essence—and, of course ensuring that red tape does not get in the way of the general aviation sector being viable. This bill responds to concerns from some in the general aviation sector who have been concerned that overregulation is costly for smaller operators. While we understand that there will always be groups who say the balance is completely wrong one way or the other, and that the legislation will never be perfect, on balance we are supporting this bill. We will continue to monitor implementation, however, of these reforms. We do know that this bill does not go as far as some in the general aviation sector would like, but we also know that there are others concerned that any change in the Civil Aviation Act could be seen to water down CASA's primary purpose of ensuring that aviation safety is paramount in their regulatory activities. They are concerned about this bill as well.

We are very strong in and very proud of our track record when it comes to the aviation industry. In government, the now Leader of the Opposition, as transport minister, delivered Australia's first, and only, aviation white paper. One of the stated objectives of that white paper was the maintenance of a safe, efficient and innovative general aviation sector. The white paper provided a comprehensive and balanced framework, bringing together all aspects of aviation policy into a single, coherent and forward-looking statement. Importantly, it included initiatives designed to give the general aviation industry the certainty and incentive to plan and invest for the longer term. To this end, the former Labor government introduced more generous accelerated depreciation rates for aircraft as an incentive for owners to upgrade their aircraft; reduced the number of 24-hour restricted airspace areas from 81 to 15; committed to the continued operation and growth of secondary capital city airports; ensured that the master plans for secondary airports maintained a strong focus on aviation development, not non-aeronautical uses that could compromise future aviation activities; and we lessened the financial burden of regulation on the sector by restricting increases in CASA regulatory service charges to rises in the consumer price index.

These were very important reforms, and I would say to the government that I think there is a distinct lack of coherence today when it does actually come to aviation policy. It may well be time for the government to look, particularly, at the general aviation sector but also at the overall aviation sector in a more comprehensive way once again. Labor will continue to advocate for the aviation sector, to ensure safe and effective aviation services are available to the Australian community.

In conclusion, the opposition will continue to monitor the implementation of the Civil Aviation Amendment Bill 2019 to ensure that safety is not compromised and that the regulatory burden remains manageable for the sector. But with that, we will be supporting this bill.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Mr GEE (Calare—Assistant Minister to the Deputy Prime Minister) (16:09): by leave—I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

And so it was without little to no fanfare or honest, open and transparent debate, that the CA Act was amended, all under the guise of the political bi-partisanship, 'self-protection' racket of course...

---

MTF...P2 

[P7_TOM]

Shock, dismay, horror and anxiety?

Happy flying to all Funflighters out there.

Here - this is where the Angel Flight lunacy comes unstuck 

Hitch – “Funflight. All over the country pilots will be giving up their time and money to give underprivileged and sick children what could literally be the ride of their lifetime.

Whoa! What - a "charity" flight – for kids – volunteer pilots. No,  No, it must be stopped. Minimum qualifications; maintenance protocol, this is after all Community Service – ain’t it? If not then what is it? Will CASA be there to ramp check pilots, inspect maintenance releases, make sure the ‘minimum’ required flight hours’ are properly documented and can be legally established; then there is paperwork and indemnity insurance and Oh, a hundred other minor technical/ legal consideration which must be met – to ensure “safety”.

Hitch – “When the general aviation community puts in like this it makes me proud to be a part.

Hitch – “Hundreds of children will be smiling broadly tomorrow because of us, and that's something we can treasure. That's if the weather co-operates of course! South of the Murray River the atmosphere is building to something Wagnerian, which it is threatening to visit on the southern states tomorrow and Sunday. We can hope only for enough breaks in the showers and overcast to at least create some smiles even if we can't run the full program of flights.

Pray to your God you don’t blow out a dodgy tyre – investigation following. Hope that if asked, your all important paper work is up to snuff. DO NOT enter into any “nearly aerobatic” manoeuvres (what ever the hell they are). Remember - Criminal liability dogs every pilot, on every flight, no matter how well intentioned. But - no matter - Enjoy the day.

[Peetwo]

The LMH 8 November 2019: Angel Flight, a rod for the ATSB's back, who we pay the big money and some thanks.

Via the Yaffa...

– Steve Hitchen

Sometimes draining the swamp does nothing but release crocodiles, and it seems that's what happened when the Federal Government took steps to curtail the activities of Angel Flight. Using creative interpretation of data, both CASA and the ATSB have come down on the charity pretty hard then vigorously defended their positions against missiles of simple logic. The ATSB this week has implored Angel Flight to adopt their recommendation of ditching private flights in favour of putting people on RPT. Quite rightly, Angel Flight has metaphorically told them to get stuffed; it is not reasonable to ask a charity to surrender their reason for existence. If people who need to travel long distances to medical appointments could use RPT they would! There's nothing stopping them from getting on webjet and making a booking on REX or Qantaslink. Doing that regularly costs time, raises stress levels and forces people to adhere to the airline timetables. Angel Flight alleviates all of that, which is why they've conducted over 46,000 missions. That sounds to me like a demand that needs to be met, and only through volunteer private pilots giving their time and lots and lots of their hard-earned money can that happen. But this Federal Government is not one willing to brook any embarrassment and I suspect a heavy hand is about to be laid on Angel Flight.

"..it's hard to believe that the conditions played no part in these accidents.."

That recommendation was contained in the accident investigation report into a crash in Mount Gambier that contained no conclusions about the fact that the pilot took off VFR into IMC. This week, the ATSB released preliminary reports into two accidents in NSW that have a factor in common with Mount Gambier: the flights were VFR and the conditions were IMC. In fairness, the ATSB has not put out any conclusion at this stage because the investigations are not complete, so there could be other factors. However, it's hard to believe that the conditions played no part in these accidents at all, and surely in a reflection of Mount Gambier, the weather will be listed as a contributing factor. The sticking point is that the continued flight into VMC at Mount Gambier was not considered crucial enough to warrant action and it's fair for people to believe that the same reasoning will be applied for these other two accidents. Does this leave the ATSB anywhere to go that will keep their integrity intact? I doubt it, but we'll have to wait.

Having a crack at people about their pay packets is considered a very cheap shot and one most people are reluctant to take, but sometimes you just have to pull the trigger. It was pointed out to me this week that CASA, the ATSB and Airservices are now obliged to make the salaries of their executives public knowledge. The mere mention of executive salaries always angries-up the people in the streets, especially when there are so many who are putting in hours just as long or even longer for take-home pays sometimes less than 10% of what top-level public servants get. It makes them only angrier when they consider the level of service returned from government bodies. Comparisons with private business execs are a common defence, but that is only likely to result in an acquittal if the salaries of private executives are considered reasonable as well, which generally they're not unless it is by the executive themselves. Seeing so much money flowing out of the industry at a time when the participants are struggling will result in much gnashing of teeth, but very little else. For the record: CASA CEO $688K, Airservices CEO $1021K, ATSB Chief Commissioner $474K.

As part of a large fly-away group I landed at Gawler Airport in South Australia last weekend. On arrival Edinburgh airspace was deactive, which made the circuit entry a lot less stressful. Thanks heaps to the person who guided us in to park and the team who made sure we were all fueled for the trip home. Good work! Further thanks to the operators of Horsham Airport who make coffee and tea available in the terminal building. A perfect intermediate stop and an example for other airport operators as well. When you're away from home and you encounter people who do the small things to get you on your way, you know you're a part of a very special community.

May your gauges always be in the green,

Hitch

Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/the-l...2W7RIjb.99

Hmm...I think we need to send a choccy frog or two to the Oz Flying/Yaffa editorial team...


MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

Digging thru the cyber dustbins, for something completely unrelated, I came across the following link off the Right To Know website: Decision letter and docs to Rob Cumming Hawkesbury crash sent 11 Jan 18.pdf

Now I am not sure what Rob Cumming (aka Flying Oz) actually did with that released document but if ever you wanted a real insight into the inner workings of Fort Fumble go no further than this email chain response to the Ean Higgins questions in relation to the Sydney Seaplanes Beaver crash -

---

---

MTF...P2

ps Why do I get the feeling that P7 and P9 plus the BRB are going to have a field day with this...

[P7_TOM]

All in a day’s ‘work’?

Jonathan

I have adopt some of your changes, but not all as I don’t want to confuse the recipient(s) nor create the need for further questioning.

Peter

Grammar, syntax, deliberately generated confusion and spelling aside; it just about says all that needs be said about the CASA brains trust. Seriously; how many people does it take to answer four simple questions. How much time and effort for the top dogs @ their hourly rate to dream up this twaddle, send it to all and sundry to make sure the ‘answer’ is about right – “Looks good” quoth Gobshite. 

Of course a technical answer, in simple terms for ‘that man’ ‘Iggins would have been simple enough to manage, without Jonathan needing to locate and rearrange his marbles and ‘confusing’ the matter into some sort of quasi legal Mumbo-Jumbo. At least the Gobshite had sense enough to cull the ramblings from the ‘all together’ statement. Lord; what a cast of inmates.

Dear Ean.

There has been, from the Canadian safety agencies, discussion related to making it mandatory to retrofit a ‘Stall warning’ to the DH2 (Beaver). As the Canadian and Alaskan authorities manage the majority of the world DH2 fleet, CASA is monitoring their investigation process and decision making. The overseas decision, based on the vast experience of DH 2 operations available will be adopted by CASA as world best practice.Meanwhile, for your information and consideration:-

The ‘stall’ speed of the aircraft is placed at 39 knots. The ‘take-off’ speed is placed between 47 and 56 knots. Clearly, if the aircraft stops flying at 39 KIAS, and may ‘take-off’ at 47 knots there is a minimum deficit of 8 knots to be made up, before flight is even possible. The nominated climb speed is placed at about 82 knots. A pilot may lift off at the minimum speed, but must accelerate to the climb speed if the intention is to climb. With a target climb speed of 82 knots and a ‘stall’ speed of 39 knots; the need for a system to warn of a speed gate, 40 knots below any sensible flight speed and a good 10 knots before flight is even possible, the notion of ‘stall warning’ becomes ‘academic’. Furthermore, the aircraft has been in service since 1947, flown millions of hours, in tough conditions, with a range of different pilot skills, without a stall warning being fitted.

In keeping with our mandate not to make silly, knee jerk rules and to keep Jonathan quiet, lest the men in white come before 1530 hrs; we shall await the expert guidance of those who have considerably more experience with the aircraft and it’s operations. By the way, the Hawkesbury aircraft did not ‘stall’ – really it didn’t. ATSB have NFI; we have NFI so the accident will be hung on hook, in the basement freezer until everyone has forgotten all about it. The alternative is that Canada attempts to retro fit stall warning to the Bush Pilot’s aircraft – Good luck with that…..

Cheers Gobshite.

There you see Master Higgins; all much ado about nothing – except for the real story; which the incredible cost of and antics attached to, responding to your simple four questions. Just for fun; lets try:-

1) No.

2) No.

3) No.

4) Yes/No/Maybe – What do you think? Why do you want know?. Who are you again? What was it you asked?

Priceless.

One thing though – it does prove how shit scared the miniscule is of press attention and how much trouble CASA will go to, at great expense, to answer a few simple questions, honestly, in a straight forward manner. The protection racket at work.

Well, the lad has just pulled another Pint from the keg, I can still see the ghosts of the seriously long laugh we had (at CASA expense) hanging about, since P2 sent this priceless discovery through. We do try to keep him out of the dustbins – but a Terrier is – a terrier and dustbins are fair game. What more can I say but Cheers Gobshite; thanks for the laughs. Enough; Pint, darts, #1 Son and game on – if we can manage for laughing that is. What a shemozzle.  Choc Frog to that man ‘Iggins (and thankyou)….

[Peetwo]

Via AOPA Oz:

---

PROFESSIONALS AUSTRALIA: CASA IN CRISIS

October 7, 2020 By Benjamin Morgan



A discussion paper released by Professionals Australia, a union representing employees of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, has labeled CASA as being in a state of crisis, highlighting serious deficiencies in technical knowledge and capability.


The paper identified five key issues;

1. Staffing::Technical teams are chronically short-staffed and there is an effective freeze on recruitment;
   
   
   
2. Workloads:  Understaffing is intensifying workloads among a shrinking pool of technical professionals.
   
   
   
3. Training and currency:  Technical workgroups are being deskilled as a result of alack of currency training and professional development.
   
   
   
4. Restructuring and procedural change:  CASA are hollowing out the technical elements of many roles via restructuring and changing procedures which limit the opportunity to conduct technical work and oversight.
   
   
   
5. Poor engagement and loss of confidence: CASA fails to take the concerns of technical staff seriously, convinced that the direction that executive are taking the organisation in is sound.  Staff engagement and confidence in leadership is at an all-time low.
   

The discussion paper took into consideration recent surveys conducted by the Australian Public Service Sensus, Professional Australia and other unions, finding that CASA staff have lost faith in their leadership as a result of the culmination of these issues. Serious action is required to restore that faith and repair workplace culture.


Click to download the full Professionals Australia Discussion Paper
Click to download a copy of the Australian Public Service Sensus survey of CASA





MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

Via AOPA Oz:

---

PROFESSIONALS AUSTRALIA: CASA IN CRISIS

October 7, 2020 By Benjamin Morgan



A discussion paper released by Professionals Australia, a union representing employees of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, has labeled CASA as being in a state of crisis, highlighting serious deficiencies in technical knowledge and capability.


The paper identified five key issues;

1. Staffing::Technical teams are chronically short-staffed and there is an effective freeze on recruitment;
   
   
   
2. Workloads:  Understaffing is intensifying workloads among a shrinking pool of technical professionals.
   
   
   
3. Training and currency:  Technical workgroups are being deskilled as a result of alack of currency training and professional development.
   
   
   
4. Restructuring and procedural change:  CASA are hollowing out the technical elements of many roles via restructuring and changing procedures which limit the opportunity to conduct technical work and oversight.
   
   
   
5. Poor engagement and loss of confidence: CASA fails to take the concerns of technical staff seriously, convinced that the direction that executive are taking the organisation in is sound.  Staff engagement and confidence in leadership is at an all-time low.
   

The discussion paper took into consideration recent surveys conducted by the Australian Public Service Sensus, Professional Australia and other unions, finding that CASA staff have lost faith in their leadership as a result of the culmination of these issues. Serious action is required to restore that faith and repair workplace culture.


Click to download the full Professionals Australia Discussion Paper
Click to download a copy of the Australian Public Service Sensus survey of CASA

ChocFrog nomination comment of the week...

---

Mark Newton It’s a bit of a strange document.

Claims of understaffing can be taken with a grain of salt: CASA’s budget appropriation in 2019-20 was $198 million and they added more than 70 bureaucrats, even though aviation activity in Australia didn’t grow.

The claim that technical capabilities are being hollowed out is questionable too, because CASA isn’t a technical organization anymore. Airworthiness is handled by industry, navaids and airspace is handled by Air Services Australia, airports are handled by local councils and a plethora of private consultants, airlines are essentially self-regulated via expositions with mostly light touch CASA oversight. Perhaps if technical staff are feeling unloved they could go and find real jobs somewhere else?

CASA has two (and, for all intents and purposes, only two) functions.

The first function is to recommend and draft safety regulations for promulgation into law by their Minister.

The second function is to administer the Act and its subordinate regulations.

Those two functions are linked: If CASA’s first function manages to cause regulations to pass into law which have a high administrative burden requiring additional procedures and staff to run, then CASA’s second function will need to obtain a larger budget appropriation, hire new bureaucrats and create more red tape to run them.

So if CASA’s staff are upset about being overworked or underappreciated, the obvious response is to persuade them to write better, simpler, smaller, lower-cost regulations.

Because the ONLY place their workload comes from is their own administrative requirements caused by the regulations they’ve written!

As long as they keep making rods for their own backs in they way they have been, we can all feel pretty relaxed about how unhappy they are with the result. “Doctor, it hurts when I do this!” “Well stop doing it, then!”

As soon as they work that out, the better off everyone will be.

They’re about to get a new DAS. Some of their senior leadership isn’t far off retirement (eg how many years does Aleck have left in him?)

CASA is standing at a fork in the road. If they want to change direction, now is a good time to do it.

---

&..

Matt Jacobs Don't casa run medical to? Or are they separated now as well?

Mark Newton They “run” it to the extent that they second-guess the DAMEs.

But with Class 2 Basic, do they really need to do it anymore?

Why not just devolve the class 1 and class 3’s 100% to DAMEs with some light oversight, and get out of private medicals altogether like the yanks and brits have?

Unify all private medicals, including the RAAus ones, under a single standard based on a GP physical.

Instantly cuts out about half of CASA’s involvement in medicals, and makes GA happy at the same time.

That’s an example of what I mean about CASA having two functions:

Medicals require CASA involvement for no reason other than the fact that they wrote rules which say they need CASA involvement. If they wrote the rules to require lighter-touch involvement, or no involvement, or different involvement, then AVMED would have a different (smaller) job to do.

AVMED is part of the second function I described. The only reason they have any workload at all is because the first function wrote regulations which give them work to do.

I don’t need to involve my State RTA to get a drivers license medical; They’ve devolved that responsibility to GPs via the AusRoads standard. There’s no earthly reason why CASA can’t write and publish an aviation equivalent of AusRoads, hand it off to GPs to administer, and get the hell out of medical assessment altogether.

---

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

Ref: https://auntypru.com/sbg-4-10-20-once-up...dered-etc/

Sandy's disgust?? - 

First via the Dept of Infrastructure Budget Statements: https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/depart...0_CASA.pdf

Challenging aviation trends and implications for CASA

The aviation landscape has changed dramatically with COVID-19. One immediate
impact for CASA is that its major funding source, aviation fuel excise, has been
significantly reduced. CASA’s immediate funding is highly dependent on the recovery
of the industry, particularly in the domestic high capacity regular public transport
sector.

Whilst CASA continues to support industry through significant relief measures
including fee relief, CASA is facing significant sustainable funding challenges in the
near future, with Government providing funding certainty for 2020-21 through
additional appropriation. CASA will pursue more sustainable funding options for
Government consideration as part of its 2021-22 Budget submission.

This funding uncertainty, together with the need to adapt to accommodate the
changing aviation safety environment, as the industry continues to deal with and
recovers from the impact of COVID-19, provide CASA with some unique challenges.
Examples of these challenges includes the return from hibernation of aircraft and skills
and currency deficits of aviation professionals.

The regular passenger transport sector will undergo significant change, along with the
growth and complexity of remotely piloted aircraft systems (i.e. drones). Issues of
concern are also related to ageing aircraft, the oversight of infrastructure developments
at aerodromes over the coming decade, slow growth prospects and forecast changes in
air traffic management systems. Like other safety regulators around the world, CASA
is cognisant of the need to ensure that safety-related considerations are at the forefront
of CASA’s regulatory actions for the benefit of the aviation and wider community.

As a key priority, CASA continues to develop and implement new safety standards
and regulations, taking into account the Australian Government’s regulatory reform
agenda. CASA will stay abreast of changes within the aviation industry by carefully
analysing safety and operational data to look for trends and emerging risks which
need to be addressed. This approach will further focus CASA on its core activity - the
regulation of aviation safety.

Naturally this undesirable (for CASA) circumstance has led to CASA executive management hitting up both the useless miniscule and the ScoMo Govt for more funding via (Federal Budgetary) appropriations to prop up the Grand Mystique of Aviation Safety, which the miniscule (in his usual useless form) has obligingly  succumbed to without any serious scrutiny - FFS!   

This has naturally lead to the extreme disgust and ire of one Alexander C (Sandy) Reith - via the AP email chain:

Dan,

This announcement is a huge blow to General Aviation (GA) because it signals that the Government has taken no notice whatever about the causes of the job and business losses in GA, nor paid any attention to the numerous expensive Government inquiries and very long history of the GA industry’s extreme concerns about the industry’s bureaucratically induced deterioration and decline. 

CASA, with an invisible (c.) $1 million Board.  CEO $650k and several ’managers’ on c. $400 salaries. 

In 2009 Minister Mr. Albanese was persuaded to make a ‘one off’ 4 yr aviation fuel levy increase to enable additional ‘safety studies.’ Estimate was $89 million. On change of Government this levy was rolled into General Revenue by Minister Mr. Truss. The 200 extra CASA personnel numbers remain, total count is around 830. 

We could have taken USA or NZ rules instead of a 32 year, $hundreds of millions, make work rules rewrite, still not finished, a colossal waste. Now the Coalition believes throwing money at CASA will improve it’s performance? 

Where did this come from? GA is on it’s knees, airline activity?  

The CASA corporate model of governance is broke, cannot work, we must have real Parliamentary control if there’s to be proper accountability and the practical governance of aviation in the National interest. 

Disappointed is putting it mildly, very mildly.

Sandy 

To which my reply was - 

Sandy et.al , note the Mark Newton Facebook comment here: https://auntypru.com/forum/showthread.ph...3#pid11573

Mark Newton It’s a bit of a strange document.

Claims of understaffing can be taken with a grain of salt: CASA’s budget appropriation in 2019-20 was $198 million and they added more than 70 bureaucrats, even though aviation activity in Australia didn’t grow.

The claim that technical capabilities are being hollowed out is questionable too, because CASA isn’t a technical organization anymore. Airworthiness is handled by industry, navaids and airspace is handled by Air Services Australia, airports are handled by local councils and a plethora of private consultants, airlines are essentially self-regulated via expositions with mostly light touch CASA oversight. Perhaps if technical staff are feeling unloved they could go and find real jobs somewhere else?

CASA has two (and, for all intents and purposes, only two) functions.

The first function is to recommend and draft safety regulations for promulgation into law by their Minister.

The second function is to administer the Act and its subordinate regulations.

Those two functions are linked: If CASA’s first function manages to cause regulations to pass into law which have a high administrative burden requiring additional procedures and staff to run, then CASA’s second function will need to obtain a larger budget appropriation, hire new bureaucrats and create more red tape to run them.

So if CASA’s staff are upset about being overworked or underappreciated, the obvious response is to persuade them to write better, simpler, smaller, lower-cost regulations.

Because the ONLY place their workload comes from is their own administrative requirements caused by the regulations they’ve written!

As long as they keep making rods for their own backs in they way they have been, we can all feel pretty relaxed about how unhappy they are with the result. “Doctor, it hurts when I do this!” “Well stop doing it, then!”

As soon as they work that out, the better off everyone will be.

They’re about to get a new DAS. Some of their senior leadership isn’t far off retirement (eg how many years does Aleck have left in him?)

CASA is standing at a fork in the road. If they want to change direction, now is a good time to do it.

Mark pretty much nails it IMHO

On the 89.9 million dollar bucket gifted to CASA after the ICAO and FAA audit both had major findings of lack of training and expertise within both the flight operations and airworthiness inspectorate, it is worth reflecting on these posts of mine here:  Australian campaign of O&O of ICAO NCNs - 1999-2019? & FAA IASA audit, FRMS & an 'inconvenient ditching'?

 Plus refresh your memory of former DAS McCormick's statement from 04:30 minutes here:  https://youtu.be/jXIpRrbaqbY
Now consider the following extract from public service union 'Professionals Australia' 'CASA in Crisis' discussion paper:

CASA exists to meet Australia’s obligations as a signatory to the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) Treaty 4. It is a requirement of international treaty that Australia have a compliant Civil Aviation Authority (CAA). The ICAO treaty requires that CASA employ inspectorate staff and maintain the same level of technical knowledge, training and currency as those in the industry which is being regulated.

Simply put, if CASA intends to be an effective regulator of the civil aviation industry, then CASA’s technical staff must be equally as trained and current on technical knowledge as the airlines and operators which CASA oversights.

Now go back to the Mark Newton 'nailed it' comment (especially the person mentioned in the part in bold) and I think you'll find the answer to your question Sandy of 'Where did this come from?' becomes pretty obvious.

Regards P2

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

Fort Fumble UNDERFIRE again - 

Via the SMH:

---

'Showstoppers': Emails reveal barriers to flying firefighters in Black Hawks




By Matt O'Sullivan
October 12, 2020 — 12.01am

The NSW Rural Fire Service faces an uphill battle to get two Black Hawk helicopters to fly firefighters to remote areas because it is deemed an unacceptable risk to safety.

Two years after plans for the Defence Force to give two Black Hawks to NSW, emails between RFS commissioner Rob Rogers and air-safety regulators reveal the barriers to the helicopters being used to plug a gap in the agency's operational capability.


The federal government promised two Black Hawk helicopters to the RFS two years ago.CREDIT:REBECCA HALLAS

Because the helicopters were designed for the military, there are restrictions under federal law on them being used to fly civilian passengers. 

The first Black Hawk was originally due to be transferred to the RFS last year. But the delivery of both has been delayed until 2022, once they are decommissioned by Defence.

The RFS has instead decided to spend $6.5 million – which was originally committed to refitting the Black Hawks – on two Bell 412 helicopters, which will be operational this bushfire season.

Three months after plans for the Black Hawks were unveiled in June 2018, Mr Rogers, who was then deputy commissioner, emailed the Civil Aviation Safety Authority to confirm there were no “showstoppers” from a “regulation point of view”.


Rural Fire Service commissioner Rob Rogers, left, and Premier Gladys Berejiklian.CREDIT:NICK MOIR

In a sign of his growing frustrations with the regulator later, Mr Rogers emailed CASA in February last year to say he needed to “understand we can work through the issues” before accepting a helicopter and committing NSW government funds.

“The key aim of these aircraft is to transport firefighters to areas to be on standby for lightning strikes,” he wrote. “As such, having the standard restricted-category aircraft certification is not much use to us, unless we are sure we can get past the ‘passenger’ issue.”

The emails and letters, released to Labor under freedom of information laws, show Mr Rogers requested further clarity from CASA in July last year so he could advise the NSW government “as to the viability of the gifted helicopters to meet our gap in operational capability”.


But in a letter to Mr Rogers in September last year, a senior CASA official said the body was of the view that the regulations did not permit a restricted category aircraft such as the Black Hawks being used to fly people from one location to another for ground firefighting.


The Rural Fire Service's large air tanker named the Marie Bashir.CREDIT:RFS

“CASA considers the use of a restricted category helicopter in passenger-carrying operation creates an unacceptable risk to safety,” the CASA official wrote.

The senior official said aircraft designed to military specifications “traditionally did not cover areas such as passenger safety to the same extent as the civil standards”.

The RFS continues to face hurdles to using its flagship water bomber to transport firefighters this bushfire season. The Boeing 737 – named the Marie Bashir – has been fitted to ferry up to 72 firefighters but cannot do so because CASA is yet to give regulatory approval.


Labor emergency services spokeswoman Trish Doyle said bushfires would not wait for the NSW government to be prepared for the Black Hawks to be ready.

“This gap in our firefighting capability needs to be urgently filled,” she said. “This will ensure NSW not only has a capable aerial firefighting force, but that we are ready with the pilots, infrastructure and logistics to deploy the Black Hawks when they are eventually refitted for civilian use.”

But Emergency Services Minister David Elliott said the government had funded the purchase of the two Bell 412 helicopters, which had already enhanced the RFS's operational capability.

“The NSW government will continue to support the NSW RFS as part of their discussions with [CASA] in relation to developing a public-usage category for the Black Hawk aircraft,” he said.
The RFS said it would keep working with CASA to develop a public-usage category for the Black Hawks, similar to that employed in the US, and was planning to take delivery of two helicopters from Defence in 2022.

Asked whether flying firefighters in the helicopters would create an unacceptable risk, the RFS said Black Hawks were used extensively, particularly in the US, to transport firefighters and equipment.
“The NSW RFS has and continues to maintain a stringent safety culture in line with industry best practice and does not believe the use of the Black Hawk aircraft poses any unacceptable risk to safety,” an RFS spokesman said.

---

Plus some comments, via AOPA Oz FB page:

Lorraine MacGillivray I know a number of really good people in CASA. I ask them to step up and start pushing for change in this out of control organization. If this is correct then I do not know who in CASA would foolishly say this is an unacceptable risk to safety. Are you kidding me? My experience recently is that there is a number of people in CASA who have no business being there. Just remember they sit in there these people collect their pay packet, make a lot of peoples lives and businesses hell. And go home at night with their over inflated egos after their daily power trip. It had nothing to do with safety. It is to do with control.

Mark Edwards Surely that is the commander’s decision on a case by case basis.

Adam Scott CASA is really doing it’s best to destroy aviation in Australia.

Rod Tyson Enlist them all as Reserves, sorted, Casa has no Juristiction over Military.

Graham Wilson Bloody CASA are out to completely stuff up Australia’s aviation industry.

Craig Coburn Empty skies are safe skies.

Andrew Gellert Red tape gone mad, there is no carriage difference between a human being dressed in a green uniform or a yellow uniform. The interior seating and harnesses are good enough for anyone. My God what is this regulator thinking?

Richard Pearce No industry no jobs no risk $250.000 year for what?

MTF...P2 

[Sandy Reith]

Too bad for NSW that there wasn’t someone with General Aviation (GA) experience that could have forewarned their fire service people what was bound to happen. Of course CASA won’t make a decision because they don’t have too, therefore the easy way out is to do nothing. This is the beauty of being an independent Commonwealth corporate. The appalling history of waste and extraordinary mismanagement that’s occurred during the thirty two years since CASA was cast out of direct Ministerial control should by now be glaringly obvious even to lay people, certainly to politicians. 

The unique model of governance that we’ve been saddled with all these years has proven to be disastrous for GA and cost the Nation dearly in terms of the huge loss of jobs, businesses and services.

Until there’s real action by Parliament there’s little hope of worthwhile reform. With more than a modicum of luck we may just find a new CEO with a brain and a conscience who could make a difference in the short term, but without a different model with Ministerial and Parliamentary control then the long term prospects for GA are very poor.