[thorn bird]

Couldn't help snitching this from UP, a post by Sunny, so poignant and depressing.

---

A "Forgetting" Organisation?

One of the articles of faith I absorbed as a teenager and young adult was that aviation institutions in Australia were "learning organisations" because the cause of aviation safety demanded nothing less than complete transparency by everyone engaged in the industry. How wrong I was.

I don't know how I received this idea. It might have been from reading volumes of the old crash comics in the Ansett library. It might have been reading the volumes of internal incident reports and investigations into component failures and fixes. I later wrote a few myself that I like to think embodied that spirit; transparency, no blame or encomium, just learning so it didn't happen again.

I missed the giveaways that I was wrong in ab-initio flight training. The strange silences when I asked about specific things. Being cautioned against writing things up in the MR. The "it always does that" response to aircraft behaviour queries. A near miss learning STOL at YCEM - a real "gotcha" that could have killed us, but nothing heard thereafter. The fire caused by a rag in a heater duct. Then of course bending a Cessna firewall from a behaviour by myself that must have been as old as aviation itself but that was new to me. Some learning. Others are going to repeat these mistakes.

I thought that at least the ATSB was a learning organisation what with its unbiased safety reporting and all. But after the initial Norfolk Island report I discovered that all it was interested in doing was being a political fig leaf for its masters. CASA, from reading PPRuNe, turns out to be simply a punitive regulator with no interest in learning, merely rigid compliance. For example where is the scholarly work on fuel planning, including traps for young players? All there is is a regulation; don't run out of fuel - 50 penalty points and a criminal record. You cant learn in the CASA system because learning involves testing new ideas, and that is illegal and punished. "Outcome based" training is another fig leaf to hide a lack of understanding.

I now look at what I have built and think of the numerous "non compliances" a CASA Airworthiness inspector could find if they really tried. Shall I risk finishing it and flying it? I'm sure it will fly but its the regulator I fear. I think of the people whose careers imploded because CASA did not like their "attitude" or who became victims of forensic searches for errors in records looking for something to convict. I read in the AAT decisions about serial injustice.

I read about the minutiae of maintenance regulations, the behaviour of the CASA medical section. Is it any wonder that most pilots have at least two doctors? I think of the "maintenance statement" i have to write in the aircraft logbook and how it might one day be used to convict me of crime. I decide that the best way is to write as little as possible. Not the safest way, the best way from a legal standpoint. I vow never, ever, to fly anywhere near a CASA operative. I make a mental note to make myself scarce if I ever detect one. These people are not teachers of anything except abject obedience.

The characteristics of a learning organisation:

· An atmosphere of trust and acceptance

· People taking ownership of their learning

· Senior managers and leaders walking the learning talk

· Values and vision that people robustly debate, share and articulate

· Rich communication and feedback loops

· Collaboration between different silos and with external partners

· Staff excited about their work and about belonging to the company

· Learning evident at individual, team and organisational levels

· Systems in place to support learning

---

[thorn bird]

From Fridays Australian by Gideon Rozner

Government red tape costs billions, so let’s black-list it

GIDEON ROZNER

The Australian12:00AM January 5, 2018

As Coalition MPs enjoy the summer respite after a tumultuous year in politics, Malcolm Turnbull is gearing up to reset the national agenda with a focus on economic prosperity.

To that end, the Prime Minister should put red tape reduction at the top of his list of new year’s resolutions.

Unlike the mooted cuts to company and income tax — welcome as those would be — cutting red tape wouldn’t take one cent off the budget’s bottom line.

Research by the Institute of Public Affairs indicates that unnecessary regulation costs the Australian economy $176 billion — every year.

Without red tape, the Australian economy would be 11 per cent larger and annually, the average household would be $19,300 better off.

As Senate Red Tape Committee chairman David Leyonhjelm has said, this cost is “reflected in businesses that are never started, jobs never created and the time lost adhering to bureaucratic requirements”.

By world standards, Australia’s red tape problem is woeful. According to the World Economic Forum, we rank 80th in the world when it comes to burden of government regulation.

This is miles behind countries such as the US (12th), New Zealand (22nd) and Britain (32nd), putting us in the same league as jurisdictions such as Kyrgyzstan (77th), Bangladesh (78th) and Iran (83rd).

It’s no wonder that business investment as a percentage of gross domestic product is lower than it was when Gough Whitlam was in the Lodge.

And when it comes to our rate of entrepreneurial growth, Australia ranks dead last among the 32 countries in the OECD.

Meanwhile, once-thriving titans of Australian industry are throwing up their hands in frustration.

Frank Lowy, founder of the Westfield property empire, cited overregulation as a key reason for accepting a takeover offer from French multinational Unibail-Rodamco late last year.

“I was sick and tired of all the useless formalities,” Lowy said. “It took away a lot of the pleasure. Most of that box-ticking that was created over the last 15 years or so was a waste of time.

“It didn’t add value. It stifled entrepreneurship.”

Getting out, Lowy said, would be “less demanding on my time, body and soul”.

Lowy is not alone. Nor is Australia’s red tape crisis limited to the big end of town.

Aspiring hairdressers in NSW, for example, must complete 847 hours of study and can expect to part with up to $9970.

Opening a restaurant in the same state requires the completion of 48 separate forms and the acquisition of 72 licences.

Builders are so preoccupied with compliance that it is taking them more than 20 hours on jobs that otherwise would take six.

Meanwhile, average building approval times vary wildly between cities, ranging from just five business days in Cairns to 118 in Launceston.

To be sure, the Coalition has runs on the board when it comes to cutting red tape.

Biannual “repeal days” occurred under the Abbott and Turnbull governments, scrubbing more than 50,000 pages of regulation off the books in the program’s first year alone.

But the government’s red tape reduction program appears to have ground to a halt, publishing its last annual report in March 2016.

Fortunately, there are plenty of international examples the Turnbull government can use to jump-start its regulatory reform efforts.

Many jurisdictions have had success with variants of the “one-in-two-out” model — that is, for every new regulatory requirement introduced, the government is required to eliminate two. This model has been used perhaps most successfully in the Canadian province of British Columbia, where the government has cut red tape by 48 per cent, scrapping more than 160,000 individual regulatory requirements since 2001.

More recently, US President Donald Trump’s one-in-two-out executive order — signed just under a year ago — vastly exceeded its target, taking out 22 old regulations for every new one introduced.

The Key government in New Zealand took a qualitative approach, inviting Kiwis to submit examples of “loopy rules” that drove them crazy. Among the most egregious was a requirement on owners of a bus depot that had no walls to install four exit signs to assist passengers in finding their way out in the event of a fire.

Many Australians would have similar red tape horror stories. Hundreds of thousands of unnecessary, costly and downright bizarre regulations are sitting on our books. Malcolm Turnbull should make 2018 about slashing this jungle of red tape and unleashing prosperity for all Australians.

Gideon Rozner is a research fellow at the Institute of Public Affairs.

There is no doubt which Australian Bureaucracy would take the prize for making gobbledygook regulation  an art form. They have completely destroyed a whole industry, exported flying training, maintenance and pretty much everything else connected to Aviation to foreign competitors so its a bit pointless having a competition to guess the Australian Red Tape champions, its "Fait accompli".

However it might be a bit of fun for K to run a "whats the most ridiculous regulation" competition, winner takes all with a suitable prize for the adjudged winner.

Nope, no way, not playing, ain't gunna doit.

[Peetwo]

- Big grins to the last -

Thought this one from 'that man' would best be suited on thorny's thread...

---

Australian of the Year: Dick Smith is till reaching for the sky

Dick Smith stepped in to help the family of Albert Namatjira

The Australian 12:00AM January 10, 2018

EAN HIGGINS



The thing Dick Smith did in 2017 that he’s most proud of has nothing to with what he’s best known for: business entrepreneurship ventures which have made him rich, and his endless battle as an aviator to reform regulation governing Australian skies.

Rather, Mr Smith is most chuffed at how he was the deal-maker and enabler of a solution to a long and bitter battle over the copyright of renowned Aboriginal watercolourist Albert Namatjira.

When Namatjira died in 1959, the Public Trustee of the Northern Territory took administration of his estate, with Legend Press, owned by John Brackenreg, continuing to manage copyright and royalty payments to the Namatjira family.

The Public Trustee sold Namatjira’s copyright to Legend Press in 1983, ending the income stream to the artist’s family.

Mr Smith heard about the controversy from National Gallery of Australia director Gerard Vaughan, and decided to intervene — his father had worked for Brackenreg about 60 years ago.

“I was able to call the Brackenreg son, Phil, and use the best of my salesmanship to persuade him this would probably get worse and worse and damage his father’s name even more,” Mr Smith said.

Under the deal, the copyright was sold to the Namatjira family for $1, and Smith paid $250,000 — not, as he expected, to the Brackenregs but at their request, to the Namatjira family.

For this act of philanthropy, and his tireless efforts to reform aviation regulation, Mr Smith has been nominated as a contender for this newspaper’s Australian of the Year.

The Dick Smith legend, seen in Dick Smith Electronics and Australian Geographic, is one of starting with good concepts, working very hard to build them into successful businesses, then selling them off for a lot of money.

“You look around the world, copy the best, and employ the best people,” he said.

Mr Smith said that as chairman of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, he’d battled to do just that with aviation regulation reform, aiming to “do everything we can at the lowest cost” without compromising safety. Instead his successors in the authority had, he claimed, “quickly looked around the world and selected the most expensive option”, imposing so much cost on aviation that it was killing the industry.

Yet he has not given up.

---

MTF...P2

[Kharon]

For those of you trapped in the city traffic, standing up on the bus, parked in an endless queue at the supermarket; or waiting to get into a ‘gender neutral’ dunny. Remember; there are places in the world without queues and where a GN dunny is called a bush. Betoota for example.

From the ABC –HERE

[thorn bird]

A great good news story K, warms the cockles of your heart, I do hope it goes well for them.

Your sentiments on our crowded world are poignant. Dick Smith, with his so often clear thinking strikes
directly to the heart of the problem, overpopulation. His message that this country cannot support an ever growing population without severely damaging our environment and living standards, yet like Lemmings or
the Aussie equivalent, a mouse plague, we continue to add people to our land which the land is incapable of supporting. The greenies bang on about global warming, Dick so clearly advocates that we really don't have
a global warming issue in this world, we have an overpopulation issue, fix the latter and the former goes away.

[Cap'n Wannabe]

Found this on Facebook via the ABC....and I had a bit of a giggle...

Article here..

The four breakthroughs that will revolutionise long-haul flights in 10-15 years

By Chrystal Zhang

Australians love travelling. We enthusiastically jump on planes, seeking out wonders of the world.

But we're increasingly conscious of our wellbeing onboard these long-haul flights. Will advancements in technology help resolve this dilemma?

By 2035, there will be almost twice the number of passengers as 2016, according to the International Air Transport Association, leaping from 3.8 billion to a huge 7.2 billion.

As the aviation industry prepares for billions of new customers, here's some of the trends that will revolutionise flying in the next 10 to 15 years.

1. Long-haul and ultra-long-haul will become the norm

Despite the physical challenges for both flight crew and travellers, legacy and budget carriers will continue to launch long-haul and extra long-haul services.

Why? To begin with, to satisfy travellers' zest for discovering new destinations that are unknown, remote or difficult to access. Virtual and augmented reality technology is allowing travellers to discover secluded, "Instagram-friendly" places, assuring airlines of a sustainable demand for long-haul flights.

Meanwhile, the market for short haul services will shrink due to competition from alternative modes of transport like high-speed rail, self-driving cars and cruises. On top of this, technology like teleconferencing and virtual reality is removing the need for domestic in-person travel.

A more relaxed regulatory environment, economic growth and technological advancement are all setting airlines up to tap into new markets.

2. Supersonic aircraft will co-exist with current jets

While long-haul flights open a door to the world, travellers still face the physical challenge of long hours aboard. But is there an alternative?

Yes — board a supersonic.

A sleek new supersonic jet being developed in the US could reduce a journey between Sydney and Los Angeles from 15 hours to just 7.5 hours. Tokyo to San Francisco is five hours instead of 11, New York to London is just 3.5 hours.

The inaugural test flight will not take to the skies until late 2018 and commercialised services won't be available until the mid-2020s. But the breakthrough heralds a new generation of aircraft that will change humans' perceptions of long-distance travel.

Airlines such as Japan Airlines, Virgin Atlantic and Delta already have ambitious plans to deploy supersonic on their long-hauls. Not all travellers will be able to afford the fares in the early days, but a price drop is anticipated in due course with an estimated demand for 1,300 — $260 billion worth — of supersonic aircraft.

3. Cabins will get a make-over


Your time in the air will be more bearable as cabins are improved, with more ergonomic design, better menus and enhanced entertainment systems.

While cabins will still be divided between first, business and economy class, even economy will get a facelift:

• Aircraft will be windowless as all walls and ceiling panels become digital displays
  You'll board through a hotel-style central double door
  Cabins will be configured by function, such as family, senior and group zones and booths, and multipurpose spaces for relaxation and self-service
  

4. Technology will radically change your journey


The development of mass commercial air travel revolutionised how we connect with one-another. Now, the digital revolution is set to make air travel a more seamless experience.

"In the not-too-distant future, robots will serve travellers both at the airport and onboard. Pilotless flights will be in operation."


Security measures will operate through artificial intelligence, including facial recognition, retinal and fingerprint scanning. Blockchain technology will ensure the privacy of your data.

Mobile apps will allow for real-time tracking of arrivals and departures. Wearable technology will trace your movements and provide a personalised experience onboard.

Looking forward
The next 15 years will be an exciting time for air travel.

With technology constantly evolving, we can't say for certain what the future may hold.

In the meantime, pack your bags and prepare for a new and exciting destination — your Instagram is about to take off!

Chrystal Zhang is a senior lecturer and research director in the Department of Aviation at Swinburne University of Technology.

Bolding mine...a more relaxed regulatory environment?  In Australia?  Seriously?

[Kharon]

A touch of CASA?

This is going to get interesting. The news articles - HERE – and – THERE outline the huge PR operation with the somewhat dramatic title ‘Rolling Thunder’. It is, despite the drama, a great idea – in principal and needed doing – there are some ‘dodgy’ operators and it is a highly competitive, cut throat game. I just wonder at the overall effectiveness and if the long term results will see any real change. Independent owner operators, mortgaged to the hilt dependent on ‘contract’ with the big users are under constant pressure to keep rolling which is bad enough, but they must also cope with competitive pressure from their contemporary's. It is a very tough game, with many fiscal pressure points, slim rewards and total ‘black letter’ compliance is expensive. Those at the coal face will pay their fines, rectify the defects and keep going until they get trapped again. But what of the ‘root’ cause, what steps have been taken to address those issues, which Senator Sterle amongst others have mentioned? This initiative has addressed the effects, but not the cause.

It reminded me of the CASA approach to ‘problems’, a big, flash splash which seemed to be getting something done, without tackling the radicals. Then I read this:-

"RMS director of compliance Roger Weeks says the operation will rid NSW roads of shonky operators who are giving the trucking industry a bad name."

"We got a really clear message from those responsible companies and those professional truck drivers (in the) industry... telling us that they want us to get rid of the cowboys," Mr Weeks told AAP.

"They want the ratbag element out of their industry because they know it's those folk who are giving their whole industry a bad name, so that's who's in our sights."

Suddenly; all became clear. Weeks may, during his tenure with CASA, have intimidated and mismanaged air operators, buggered up some fairly important regulations and enforced ‘black letter’ law on a fairly tame, compliant industry – but I wonder how the trucking industry is going to respond to a CASA style putsch being inflicted. CASA may well get away with it, as aviation has long been ruin ragged by ‘the authority’ and “Yes Sir” has long been the standard answer from the inculcated. I’m just not sure how a bunch of truckies, their unions or even their employers are going to react to a touch of CASA.

This is going to get interesting

I shall watch, with interest.

Toot - toot.

[thorn bird]

Increasingly it would seem "Joe Punter" is becoming aware he is being screwed by ever increasing rises in the price he pays for a ticket to and from "Kickatinalong".
Cant really blame him, for lashing out at what he sees as the offending party.

To some extent I guess his wrath is aimed in the right direction, the airline operators do gouge. Tickets that can be 60 bucks one day and 700 the next for a one way fare for the same journey can be difficult to explain and even more difficult for the average punter to understand But airlines are in the business to make profit for their shareholders one can hardly blame them for when demand and lack of capacity leaves them in a position to make hay while the sun shines. They need to to stay in front of the ever increasing tranche of regulations being churned out by the aviation regulator.
Added to that, the maw of all the support services and general parasitic industries that have grown up to feed off the carcass of aviation.
I saw once an airline actually broke down their fares to apportion the cost of the ticket and reflect the true costs of providing an aviation service. I understand the government very quickly stepped in to shut that down, the political fallout was too severe for Joe public to be shown the truth. The actual costs for the airline providing a crewed aircraft on the ramp ready to go was a very minor part of the overall cost when all the hanger ons had been paid.

I believe Joe Public would be very interested to know how much of the ticket price goes to Comply with Australia's unique, home grown mass of regulatory gobbledegook.

How much of the ticket price is taken up by Australia's unique completely incompatible maintenance regulations.(I know of one operator who ferries their aircraft to America for heavy maintenance because it costs half what it costs in Australia and they do a better job).
The costs of so called security, terminal charges, landing fees paid to dodgy banks who saw the value of a monopoly.

A Monopoly created by a government that could see no value in public infrastructure even though it returned dividend to government which could be used to build better infrastructure.

The big dodgy banks could see a money tree when it was waved at them, borrowing vast sums of money to purchase assets the public owned debt free. Once paid, that money disappeared into the Maw of consolidated revenue, never to be seen again.

The the big dodgy bank, with a bit of creative accounting, in reality actually loaned the money to themselves, creating a massive debt that previously didn't exist, then charged every user of the asset huge fees to service that debt which could never truely be serviced, thus a profit could never be obtained, and the whole Ponzi scheme with massive turnover would never pay tax.
The losers of course were Joe public who lost an asset they owned, debt free, now saddled with paying the interest on loans that they didn't take out and the big Dodgy bank won a money tree. Best of all they didn't have to spend a penny improving the asset, accept on stuff that maximised their returns. As someone said "What a nice little earner."
Anyway a snippet from Rural Queensland.

The North West Star
February 2 2018 – 10:01AM
High priced airfares affecting Mount Isa’s economy
Melissa North

INFLATED PRICES: Mount Isa City Council is demanding a better deal from airlines and Government to help stimulate the region’s economy. Photo: Supplied
INFLATED PRICES: Mount Isa City Council is demanding a better deal from airlines and Government to help stimulate the region’s economy. Photo: Supplied

Mount Isa City Council is demanding a better deal from airlines and governments to help stimulate the region’s economy and make air travel more affordable for local families.

Mayor Joyce McCulloch said high priced air travel was holding back efforts to attract new jobs and investment to Mount Isa and isolating those who chose to live and work in the city.

“Our economy is worth $1 billion annually to the state and federal treasuries and yet grandparents can’t afford to visit their grandkids, and families can’t afford holidays without first driving 900km to Townsville,” Cr McCulloch said.
Council said it had prepared a detailed submission to the Senate inquiry investigating the operation, regulation and funding of air services to rural, regional and remote communities.

The submission follows a Mount Isa City Council motion at the Australian Local Government Association annual conference in Canberra in June 2017 calling for the federal government “to ensure the cost of airfares and transport in remote and rural areas provides economic and affordable access to all residents.”

Cr McCulloch said the excessive cost of air travel for Mount Isa residents and visitors was unjust and out of step with government objectives to develop northern Australia and grow regional economies.

“How can the Australian Government talk up the development of northern Australia when airfares out of Mount Isa are three times the cost of flights from metropolitan centres?” she said.

“It’s cheaper to fly internationally than it is from Mount Isa to Brisbane.”

Cr McCulloch said Qantas and other airlines profited from people’s stress and grief in emergencies, charging huge sums for people who booked late while the planes themselves were not optimal.

“Qantas aircraft used on the Mount Isa routes are often ageing and unreliable, and onboard food and entertainment can be rare luxuries,” she said.

The council’s recommendations are grouped around five themes: airfare parity, price monitoring, cost reductions, competition enhancements and subsidies.

They called on “governments and industry” to:

Act to ensure airfares in regional; and remote Queensland are comparable in price to air services between the major metropolitan centres in Australia and along coastal Queensland
Remove excise taxed on aviation fuel used by regional and remote airlines and exempting regional airlines from paying  Airservices Australia charges
Direct the ACCC to monitor prices at Australia’s regional airports and to approve the prices at the major airports for regional air services
Allow overseas airlines to operate in regional Australia
Establish an ongoing, formalised program of cooperation between Government and regional airlines to identify further opportunities to reduce airline operating costs.
Cr McCulloch said they also called on the Queensland government to expand its financial support for aviation in regional parts of the state.

“The Queensland government’s per capita expenditure on public transport in regional and remote Queensland should at least match their per capita expenditure in south-east Queensland,” she said.

“This is about a fair go for regional Queensland, plain and simple, and we welcome this opportunity to make our voices heard.”

[Peetwo]

Kudos to 'the Australian' newspaper


For and on behalf of Sandy who brought my attention to the following Ean Higgins article in the Oz today:

---

New spy laws to hinder ‘legitimate work of media’



Ashurst partner Robert Todd. Picture: Hollie Adams

The Australian 12:00AM February 6, 2018

EAN HIGGINS
ReporterSydney
@EanHiggins

The federal government’s proposed foreign interference laws create “the real risk you are going to chill the legitimate work of the media”, one of the country’s most eminent media lawyers says.

Robert Todd, a partner at Ashurst, told The Australian that if ­enacted, the law would result in a cascade of unintended consequences, making criminals of ­innocents, from social media tweeters, to media lawyers, to the removalists who unknowingly moved the locked filing cabinets with secret government documents exposed by the ABC.

“Whatever the good intentions in the legislation, they count for little when you are facing 15 years’ imprisonment,” he said. “The structure of the legislation is chilling in its nature, in the sense that making out a defence will be ­extremely difficult and fraught.”

Attorney-General Christian Porter last week played down concerns of journalists, expressed in submissions from, among others, their professional association, the Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance, and media companies including News Corp Australia, publisher of The ­Australia n.

Mr Porter last week saidit was “not the intent” of the ­government to criminalise normal journalism, and he did not think it was a “likely outcome”.

Yesterday, Mr Porter appeared to shift his position, saying he now had “concerns” as a result of the submissions. “I might say a few of those submissions have hit on some areas where my personal view is that improvements could be made,” he told Sky News.

“These are largely to do with the tightening of the drafting to provide certainty, particularly for journalists.”

Mr Porter said the government would “seek advice with respect to each of the legal issues raised”.

Mr Todd said “while the government might say it did not have the intention to prosecute in such cases, by making it law, it’s still a crime”.

The defences in the legislation were grossly deficient, he said. “I think the so-called protections for journalists provide pretty anaemic protections for journalists, and essentially none for others.”

Journalists would have to “leap over” three bars in defending their actions, he said, proving public interest, being a journalist, and that the report was fair and accurate. The problem could be more acute for social media entities, he said. Some “would not assert they were engaging in fair and ­accurate reporting, but something else.” Tweeting and retweeting could be captured by the law.

“These people might be kept anonymous in some way, but then a burden would fall on Twitter.”

Mr Todd said media lawyers often gave advice to journalists on publishing stories based on leaked government documents, including ones that were classified and involved potentially sensitive sec­urity issues. Under proposed new laws, “the mere giving of that ­advice is going to be difficult”.

“I won’t want the document, because I may end up dealing with it,” Mr Todd said. “It’s an offence if you deal with the information.”

Opposition legal affairs spokesman Mark Dreyfus said the proposed laws “criminalise ordinary journalism”.

“They have chosen to completely amend all of the secrecy provisions that have been in the Crimes Act since 1914, amended in 1960, not touched since,” he said.

“(Look at) the care that the Howard government took over the introduction of the criminal code, compared with this hasty, rushed legislation brought into the parliament at five minutes to midnight on the last day of sittings last year.”

Mr Todd said legislation was usually brought in to solve a known problem. But with the foreign interference laws, he said, “This is kind of, ‘We don’t know when something might happen that we don’t like, so we will make it as broad as possible’.”

---

It was this article (amongst others) that inspired Sandy to tap out the following letter to the editor...  

Dear Editor,

You and your newspaper are to be congratulated for keeping Simon Birmingham’s proposed new spy laws to our attention. It looks like the great power hungry centre of Canberra is never satisfied.

The octopus tentacles are reaching for dominance and control. By continually eroding our precious freedoms we go backwards.  Freedoms not only should be protected as rights for the individual but go to the heart and reason for our success as a Nation.

Your reporters, Ean Higgins, Primrose Riordan and Nicola Berkovic are doing a great service by bringing to us the likely fallout, not just by their opinions but by canvassing the issues with knowledgeable leaders in legal matters.

Ean Higgins in particular has been ‘outing’ the Civil Aviation Safety Authority in a similar fashion.

The Crown Control and Command system of governance nowhere more fully fledged than this ‘independent’ fee gouging Commonwealth corporate which has managed to get thousands of new rules, practically the whole suit of (unworkable) aviation regulations, into the criminal code with strict liability guilt built in, despite being completely against the Commonwealth’s own law drafting guidelines. Unintended consequences sound familiar? The wrecking of General Aviation in Australia.
But back to new spy laws, quoting our Attorney General in an unconvincing back peddle:-

“These are largely to do with the tightening of the drafting to provide certainty, particularly for journalists.”

Well maybe we have to define who is a journalist? Just about anyone who opens their mouth or has a comment published in the Australian might be. Or not;  will this depend on a bureaucratic interpretation of a bureaucratically designed law that undoubtedly will create many more Can’tberra jobs?


Sandy Reith

Enuff said -  


MTF...P2  

[Kharon]

Worth a read:-

The hypocrisy of Barnaby Joyce is stunning.

John Birmingham – SMH.

Surprised Pickering is not all over this latest debacle, another one in a long line of 'similar' from both sides of parliament. 'Nuff said.

[Cap'n Wannabe]

Worth a read:-

The hypocrisy of Barnaby Joyce is stunning.

John Birmingham – SMH.

Surprised Pickering is not all over this latest debacle, another one in a long line of 'similar' from both sides of parliament. 'Nuff said.

Some pundits are saying he'll be gone by lunchtime...

[thorn bird]

"Some pundits are saying he'll be gone by lunchtime..."

Yup, next Friday to be exact, I believe they are preparing a sandpit in Martin Place for the ritual
Friday afternoon flogging, followed by a stoning, only bearded males are permitted to throw stones.

[Kharon]

Larry Pickering's vision splendid:-

"Now Australia could have an honest Conservative Government that will kill off the ABC and Fraser’s SBS, dump the Paris accord, start re-mining coal, get energy costs back to normal, ban RETs, develop the north, start on nuclear power, halve immigration, combine and halve our security agencies, decimate the corrupt and bloated SCSIRO, ban immigration from known terrorist nations, reduce QUANGOs by 75%, reduce all Departmental budgets by 10%, reduce the Public Service by 5,000, cap their salaries, allow the States to collect and spend their own GST, stop ‘nominated’ Aboriginal status, reform the judiciaries, Reform the Senate, force States to reform the Family Court and the CSA, stop Islamic welfare rorts, tell the Islamic dominated UN to go root its boot, ban deficit spending, rip up 20,000 regulations, cull crocodiles and bats and at the next election include a fair dinkum referendum on restoring a trashed Marriage Act. (You can look forward to a much different result than the last Green inspired dodgy one.)"

He has a point; except for the culling of croc's and bat's; they are nowhere near as dangerous or expensive as the other feral (federal) creatures mentioned.

[thorn bird]

Winter almost upon us. Interesting article and a timely reminder.

When Luck Fails: A Commander Comes To Grief
Feb 26, 2018.

Richard N. Aarons | Business & Commercial Aviation

This article appears in the March 2018 issue of Business & Commercial Aviation with the title  - “When Luck Fails.”

Students of air safety investigation know that most accidents and incidents arise from a series ofsmall events that slip unnoticed into the timeline rather than one catastrophic occurrence. Small mechanical stresses grow into large system failures; cockpit workload gradually increases until thecrew falls behind the situation; and, sometimes, luck (good or bad) enters the equation and skews the outcome.

All of these elements seem to have played roles in the loss of a Gulfstream Commander 690C (N840V)
on Feb. 3, 2014, about 1655 CST. The 62-year-old private pilot and three passengers were killed and
the airplane destroyed when it crashed while on approach to the John C. Tune Airport (KJWN) near
Nashville, Tennessee.
Ultimately, the NTSB determined the probable cause of this accident was: “The pilot’s failure to
maintain airspeed with one engine inoperative, which resulted in a loss of control while on approach.
Contributing to the accident were airframe ice accumulation due to conditions conducive to icing and
the loss of engine power on one engine.”
The businessman owner-pilot held ratings for airplane single- and multiengine land, and instrument.
His logbook was not located, but training and medical records indicate he had accumulated over
3,000 hr., including about 1,400 in multiengine airplanes, 450 hr. instrument time and 720 hr. in the
accident airplane. He held a third-class medical and post-mortem toxicological screening showed no
abnormalities. All airplane occupants died of blunt force trauma.
The Flight
On the day of the accident, the pilot flew the airplane from the Clarence E. Page Municipal Airport
(KRCE), Oklahoma City, where it had undergone maintenance including a 150-hr. periodic inspection,
to its home base at Great Bend, Kansas, Municipal Airport (KGBD). His passengers then boarded and
the airplane departed at about 1445 on an IFR flight plan to Nashville. The businessmen had planned
to attend a trade show in the area.
The flight to the Nashville area was uneventful and, as the Commander neared the destination at
1628, the controller cleared the pilot to execute a GPS (RNAV) approach to Runway 2 at KJWN.
Shortly thereafter, the pilot informed the controller that he needed to review the approach procedure
before continuing the approach. The controller acknowledged, and, after the pilot reported that he
was ready to proceed with the approach, the controller again issued clearance for the GPS approach.
Radar data showed that, during the approach, the airplane tracked a course that was offset about a
half mile right of the final approach course until it was about 1 mi. from the runway threshold. The
airplane then turned left toward the threshold and descended to an altitude of about 145 ft. AGL over
the runway threshold before the pilot performed a missed approach. “It is likely,” said the Safety
Board, “that the pilot performed the missed approach because he was unable to align the airplane
with the runway before it crossed the threshold.”
The controller provided radar vectors for the airplane to return to the approach course and cleared
the pilot a third time for the GPS approach to the runway. Radar data showed that the airplane was
established on the final approach course as it passed the initial approach fix; however, before it
reached the final approach fix, its airspeed slowed to about 111 kt., and it began a left turn with a 25-
deg. bank angle. About 18 sec. later, while still in the turn, the airplane slowed to 108 kt. and began
descending rapidly. The airplane’s rate of descent exceeded 10,000 ft. per minute, and it crashed into
trees and then the ground.
The impact created a crater that was 11-ft. long, 11 ft. wide, and 6 ft. deep. Broken tree branches that
contained 45-deg. angled cuts were observed at a height of about 50 ft. Investigators determined the
airplane impacted the ground at an approximate 70-deg. angle, consistent with being in an inverted
position. It was severely fragmented with debris scattered on a course of about 320 deg., for about
450 ft.
A post-crash fire consumed a majority of the airframe. Fragmentation of the wreckage precluded the
ability to confirm control continuity to the respective flight control surfaces. And as a result of impact
damage to the cockpit, Safety Board investigators could not determine the positions of ice protection
system switches at the time of the accident. Portions of the deice boot system were observed on wing
debris and portions of the horizontal stabilizer. The boots were destroyed by impact forces and fire.
Both propellers remained attached to their respective gearboxes, which had separated from their
respective engines. All three left propeller blades separated from the hub. Two right propeller blades
remained attached to the hub, and one blade had separated. Both propeller assemblies were severely
damaged and displayed evidence of rotational scoring; however, the right propeller blades displayed
a significantly greater degree of rotational scoring, tears and missing blade tips than the left blades.
Both engines had been damaged by impact and fire. Their respective fuel pumps and fuel control
units were separated. A subsequent teardown examination of the engines revealed no pre-impact
conditions that would have prevented normal operation. However, type and degree of damage to the
left engine was indicative of an engine that was not operating, with rotation consistent with a
windmilling propeller at the time of impact. Static impact marks were observed on the first and
second stage centrifugal compressor shrouds and no evidence of rotational scoring was noted on the
turbine section.
The type and degree of damage to the right engine was indicative of an engine that was operating
under power at the time of impact. Rotational scoring was observed on the first and second stage
centrifugal compressor shrouds and the first-, second- and third-stage turbine shroud. Almost all of
the vanes on the first-stage centrifugal compressor impellers were deformed and or separated. In
addition, the forward curvic coupling of the second-stage centrifugal compressor impeller was
heavily smeared.
The left engine fuel control unit was extensively damaged and could not be functionally tested.
Disassembly revealed no evidence of pre-impact malfunctions.
CAT scans of the left- and right-engine fuel shutoff valves revealed that they were both in the closed
position; however, their respective pre-impact position could not be confirmed. Teardown of the
valves revealed no evidence of any pre-impact failures. The left-engine fuel shutoff valve solenoids
could be opened and closed by applying electrical power directly to the solenoids. The right-engine
fuel shutoff valve solenoids did not function when electrical power was applied.
Examination of a vertical and directional gyro recovered from the wreckage was performed by the
NTSB Materials Laboratory. Despite impact and fire damage, tests revealed that VG and DG internal
damage was consistent with rotation at the time of the accident.
Ice
Safety Board specialists determined weather conditions present at the location and time of the
accident were conducive to supercooled liquid water droplets, and the airplane likely encountered
moderate or greater icing conditions. Several pilot reports (PIREPs) for moderate, light, trace and
negative icing were reported to ATC but were not distributed publicly into the National Airspace
System, and there was no Airmen’s Meteorological Information (AIRMET) issued for icing.
The type and degree of damage to the left engine was indicative of an engine that was not
operating, with rotation consistent with a windmilling propeller at the time of impact.
Investigators said the pilot had received standard and abbreviated weather briefings for the flight,
and his most recent weather briefing included three PIREPs for icing conditions in the area of the
accident site.
“Given the weather information provided,” said the Safety Board, “the pilot should have known icing
conditions were possible. Even so, the public distribution of additional PIREPs would have likely
increased the weather situational awareness by the pilot, weather forecasters and air traffic
controllers.”
The airplane’s deicing and anti-icing systems included wing and empennage deice boots and engine
inlet heaters. As noted, the position of the switches for the ice protection systems at the time of the
accident could not be determined.
In an analysis of the accident, investigators commented, “Although the airplane’s airspeed of 108 kt.
when the steep descent began was above its published stall speed of 77 kt., both bank angle and ice
accretion would have increased the stall speed. In addition, the published minimum control airspeed
was 93 kt. It is likely that, after the airplane passed the initial approach fix, the left engine lost power,
the airplane’s airspeed began to decay, and the asymmetric thrust resulted in a left turn. As the
airspeed continued to decay, it decreased below either stall speed or minimum control airspeed, and
the airplane entered an uncontrolled descent.”
Safety Board investigators examined both the maintenance history and ice-certification history of the
airplane. The high-wing, twin executive turboprop was manufactured in 1982. It was powered by
two Executive Wings Inc. STC-modified Garrett TPE331-5-511K 715-hp engines, equipped with
Hartzell three-blade constant-speed propeller assemblies.
According to maintenance records, the airplane’s most recent inspection was a 150-hr. periodic
inspection, which was performed on Feb. 1 — two days before the accident. At the time of the crash,
the airframe and both engines had been operated for about 4,460 total hours since new. The airplane
had been operated for about 70 hr. during the 13 months that preceded the accident.
According to the pilot operating handbook, the Commander 690C’s anti-icing system included heated
stall warning, rudder horn anti-ice, rudder tab anti-ice, generator inlet anti-ice, electrically heated
windshield and pitot-static heaters. The systems were designed to prevent ice accumulation and
were to be placed in operation prior to entering flight conditions conducive to ice formation. Engine
inlet heaters utilized hot engine compressor bleed air to prevent icing. The ice protection systems
were controlled by switches in the “ICE PROTECTION” group of the cockpit overhead switch panel.
The following warning, said the NTSB, was included under the Engine Inlet Anti-Ice Systems:
“Warning: When icing conditions may be encountered, do not delay operation of the engine inlet heat
systems. Turn the systems on before any ice accumulates. Engine inlet heat must be on if icing
conditions exist or are anticipated.”
The airplane was also equipped with a Negative Torque Sensing (NTS) system that was designed to
reduce drag caused by a windmilling propeller in the event of a loss of engine power by moving the
blades toward the feathered position to reduce drag and yaw.
Honeywell Operating Information Letter OI331-11R11, issued Sept. 16, 2013, emphasized proper use
of engine inlet anti-ice and provided additional information on the use of engine ignition in icing
conditions. The operating letter stated in part that engine inlet anti-ice should be used during all
flight in potential icing conditions and icing conditions should be considered to exist when flying in
precipitation or visible moisture (including clouds or fog) with an outside air temperature 10C or
50F, or colder. In addition, it stated, “If the use of anti-ice is inadvertently delayed after encountering
icing conditioning, ice may accumulate on engine and airframe inlet surfaces. In such instances,
subsequent application of engine inlet anti-ice can cause ice shedding and ingestion, which may
cause flameout. . . .”
So, in this case, it would seem that all the tolerances lined up unidirectionally. An airplane just out of
maintenance, only flown occasionally, susceptible to icing challenges, operating into an unfamiliar
destination in the face of what might be considered under reported mixed icing conditions came to
grief.
Those circumstances are worth thinking about.

[Peetwo]

Contagion: The indiscriminate faecal paralysis BLOB -

Not aviation related but very much on topic with the unfettered political cesspool that currently exists in Can'tberra...

Via the Oz Morning Mail:

---

 Has Shorten contracted Malcolm’s insidious faecal touch?

Beware the blob!

On the eve of the Batman elections Bill Shorten blurts out an election killer for Labor’s Ged Kearney who must have thought it merely a bad dream that would vanish come daylight. Nope, it was real and we can only imagine what she said to Shorten about that. Funny things happen to people in that house on the hill in Canberra. They drink the same Kool-Aid and suffer similar brain-farts regardless of which side of the house they sit. Their sense of entitlement is universal like a contagious bird flu. And Turnbull’s faecal touch has seeped down his leg like an insidious blob, over his shoes, across the carpet, under the despatch box and up Shorten’s leg. That’s how things spread, you know! Judith Sloan, however, brings reality to Shorten’s foolishness, or cruelty to those who will be affected by his policy.

It’s really hard to fathom why Opposition Leader Bill Shorten and his Treasury spokesman, Chris Bowen, would release a policy that will rob modest income earners of several thousand dollars per year and expect these people to be happy about it.
They mustn’t be hanging out with the people I’m hanging out with.

Source: News Corp   

---

Cue the BLOB theme song - P2

[Peetwo]

Pollywaffle ATP trough gorging continues -

Via the Oz:

---

Rent-a-plane MPs keep expenses bill flying


Eden-Monaro MP Mike Kelly. Picture: Gary Ramage

The Australian12:00AM April 10, 2018

MARK SCHLIEBS
ReporterBrisbane
@mark_schliebs

The revamped parliamentary ­expenses regime has failed to cut the total cost to taxpayers since the controversies over Sussan Ley’s interstate travel and Bronwyn Bishop’s “Choppergate”, with some MPs still racking up huge claims for charter flights over small distances.

Among the shorter charter flights claimed were three taken during the current financial year by Queanbeyan-based Labor MP Mike Kelly to fly the 80km ­between Canberra and Tumut.

Each of those charters cost taxpayers between $2000 and $3000. The trip between Can­berra and Tumut is less than 2½ hours by car.

Liberal senator Eric Abetz also claimed a $4090.91 charter ­between Hobart and Burnie last July, and Labor senator Anthony Chisholm chartered a $4202 flight between Hervey Bay and Brisbane on the same day he campaigned with Annastacia Palaszczuk during the Queensland election campaign in ­November. All three defended the claims, stating they were in ­accordance with the rules.

The new expenses regime was announced by Malcolm Turnbull in January last year, on the day Ms Ley resigned as health minister following controversy over her travel to the Gold Coast, where she had purchased an investment property.



At the time, the Prime Minister said the new Independent Parliamentary Expenses Authority would focus on compliance, reporting and transparency — but he did not mention any expected reduction in the amount of ­expenses claimed.

It is understood the government did not expect any dramatic changes to the amounts claimed by MPs and senators when it ­established the IPEA.

The total amount claimed by serving politicians in the last half of 2017 totalled $77.5 million, including costs incurred by their employees — which was counted as a separate category of expenses only from last year.

Without staff costs, the total amount claimed was $55.1m — less than 1 per cent below the $55.7m reported in the second half of 2015.

A similar amount — $52.8m — was reported in 2014, although expenses fell to $50.6m in the corresponding period in 2016.

Last week, five Labor parliamentarians — Mr Kelly, Michael Danby, Tim Hammond, Peter Khalil and senator Kimberley Kitching — were named as using taxpayer-funded allowances to pay $909 to $2000 each for a magazine from an ALP think tank that is available online for free.



But the expense claims of Mr Kelly, whose electorate of Eden-Monaro takes in Tumut, also show him chartering a “small prop plane” to the town last August, September and December.

The first, which cost $3072.73, occurred on the same day he and Labor health spokeswoman Catherine King held a community meeting with his constituents.

Three weeks later, he again flew to Tumut, for $2195.45, and held a “mobile office” session at an RSL in nearby Batlow.

According to posts on his ­social media profiles, he attended a primary school end-of-year ceremony in Tumut on the day he claimed a third charter flight, at a cost of $2310.

Mr Kelly said he believed the expenses passed the so-called “sniff test” and the passengers were “MPs and their staff”.

“A return trip from Queanbeyan to Tumut is a five-hour round trip by car,” Mr Kelly said. “Regional electorates like mine are entitled to use a small number of charter flights per year because they cover such a large distance. Eden-Monaro is larger than 66 nations in the world.”

On the day Senator Chisholm claimed his $4200 charter flight, he and Bill Shorten were on the campaign trail with the Premier in Queensland.

“Senator Chisholm had a flight from Brisbane to Canberra that evening and commercial flight times meant it wouldn’t have been possible to make the connecting flight,” a spokesman said.

A spokesman for Senator Abetz said there were “community and parliamentary commitments” in both Burnie and Hobart on the same day he chartered the flight across Tasmania.

---

P2 - I guess I shouldn't have a problem with MPs chartering aircraft, after all they are by default supporting an ailing GA industry. However the overwhelming evidence is that the unelected bureaucrats, QANGOs & GBEs are running the country so why not cut our losses and get rid of the trough feeding pollywaffles all together, as they are superfluous in Australia's Bureaucratocracy?          


MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

Excellent but sobering blogpiece from Ron Rapp on the Worldwide pilot shortage:

---

Connecting the Dots
by Ron Rapp on May 30, 2018 in AOPA Pilot • 0 Comments

A friend was searching far and wide for a first officer to fly an exquisite Falcon 2000EX EASy, but couldn’t fill the position despite the six-figure starting salary accompanying it. The company had advertised, offered hefty referral fees, upped the salary and benefits package—and still came up empty-handed.

I’d sent him pilots for other jobs in the past, but by this time my own cupboard was bare. Everyone I knew who was even remotely qualified for this kind of gig was already fully employed.

How We Got Here

This conundrum started many years ago. Sometimes it feels like it was in a galaxy far, far away, too. It cost me $4,000 to earn a private pilot certificate in 1998. Can you imagine? That same certificate at the same FBO will set you back four times as much today. Higher fuel prices, insurance rates, maintenance and parts prices, and a shrinking industry ratchet up the costs for those who remain. Some are forced out of the game altogether, while others never get a chance to start.

We’re all familiar with the downsizing, mergers, furloughs, and bankruptcies that rippled throughout the aviation world after 2001. Flying careers had already lost much of their luster and accessibility even before the walls closed in post-September 11.



The financial crisis of 2008 contributed to a decline in student starts after a level-off in the 1990s and early 2000s.

The next hit was the economic crisis of 2008, an event that played a central and somewhat underappreciated role in the current labor shortage. Obtaining the necessary certificates and ratings to work as a professional pilot can be a six-figure financial commitment. Few young people have that kind of bankroll, so borrowing money is one of the only ways to make it possible in a reasonable timeframe. After 2008, financing options for unsecured loans dried up almost overnight, taking student starts—and more than a few flight schools—with them.

Ironically, this mid-2009 timeframe was almost the exact moment the mandatory retirement age for airline pilots was raised to 65. This effectively masked the avalanche of Part 121 retirements for another half decade. And while the existing pilot workforce was growing older, there were precious few people training to replace them. The chasm was growing right before our eyes, but most were not sage enough to recognize what was happening—rumors of pilot shortages have been a part of almost every decade since the Wrights invented the airplane.

Business Aviation vs. The Airlines

While the major airlines seem to be holding their own when it comes to recruitment, they’re doing so largely at the expense of business aviation and regional airlines. Christopher Broyhill wrote in December’s Business Aviation Advisor that the majors used to rely on the military for a steady supply of aviators, but now “target business aviation pilots, because they have time in sophisticated aircraft and are a known commodity when it comes to training and upgrade.”


Illustration by Webb Creative

NBAA recently conducted a workforce retention study and found that pilots leave the corporate and charter world because of a perception that compensation, quality of life, and stability are better at the airlines. One of the most sobering metrics from that study indicates that well more than half of business aviation pilots are at least considering a move to the Part 121 world.

This labor shortage may prove far more challenging to solve than even the industry itself has realized, because the skill set required of business aviation pilots extends far beyond that required of an airline pilot.

Airlines ply a limited route network, whereas business aviation can take you anywhere on the planet, and requires corporate and charter pilots to operate with greater autonomy and less support. My company’s director of operations once called to alert me about a trip to Pyongyang. (That flight was canceled, but during the planning stages I was surprised to find that Jeppesen does include charts and data for North Korea. That would’ve really given me a leg up when comparing destinations with other Gulfstream pilots.)

Business aviators must function at various times as flight attendants, managers, dispatchers, instructors, mentors, recruiters, businessmen, accountants, and more. Some employers run steady and predictable schedules, but for most, the only constant is change. And let’s face it, not everyone thrives in that environment. Many fine aviators lack the requisite skills, or simply have no interest in these sorts of challenges. Some of the talents are innate and cannot be taught—you either possess them or you don’t.

The charter industry has a unique challenge in the form of requirements from safety auditing firms such as ARG/US and Wyvern, which are ubiquitous components of the competitive Part 135 landscape. These auditors set standards that far exceed FAA minimums. This can have positive safety repercussions, but it may also reduce the pool of available candidates.

Solving The Problem

Will Rogers once said, “If you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.” Doctors have the same philosophy: First, do no harm. In aviation terms, that means retaining existing pilots by providing compensation and quality of life that meet or exceed what others are offering. While that sounds pricey—and it is—it’s almost certainly less expensive than replacing high-quality flight crew.

Second, since pilots require years of training and seasoning in order to qualify for corporate aviation or airline jobs, the critical role general aviation plays in the health of our industry has to be acknowledged. Light GA is the foundation of the proverbial food pyramid, providing the experience and opportunities necessary for building a well-rounded aviator, and it must be respected and nurtured if the rest of the aviation world is to thrive.

Achieving that goal will demand a reduction in the cost of light GA flying. This is one area where a modicum of progress can be seen: the Part 23 rewrite, a shift away from heavy-handed FAA enforcement policy, the availability of non-TSO avionics for the light GA fleet, and so on. But more must be done. Liability and tort reform would be an excellent place to start. Access to reasonable financing options are another “must have” element of a healthy aviation ecosystem.



Exposing kids to the wonder of flying at an early age can inspire future pilots. To that end, AOPA is testing an aviation-centric science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) curriculum developed through the High School Aviation Initiative, part of AOPA’s You Can Fly program.

It also will require a long-term publicity and recruitment effort on the part of the entire industry. Organizations such as The Ninety-Nines and Women in Aviation International have made strides over the years, but today 93 percent of the pilot population is still male.

We’ve got to expose kids (and parents) to the wonder of general aviation at an early age, getting them out to the airport, bringing aviation-related STEM activity into their classrooms, and making airfields a hospitable place for visitors again.

I know from firsthand experience what an outsized impact these accessibility efforts can have. In 1977, a kind TWA flight engineer spent a few minutes with me after a flight to St. Louis; I’m sure he forgot about the experience shortly thereafter. I didn’t. Four decades later it remains an indelible and cherished memory. It’s also part of why I’m an international captain on a large-cabin Gulfstream today.

Fixing the industry’s employment shortfall is possible, but it won’t be easy—or cheap. The market has turned, and the future belongs to those who embrace the change.

This article first appeared in the April, 2018 edition of AOPA Pilot Turbine Edition

---

MTF...P2

[thorn bird]

Interesting little snippet from the ABC web sight.

Seems like the Australian fledgling space industry is facing the same problems Australian aviation is burdened with. Inept, incompetent over regulation.

Oh well, at least they found out at the start before any serious money has been put on the table rather than the slow death by a thousand cuts General Aviation has had to endure.


Australia's commercial space industry remains earthbound despite high hopes
The Conversation By Melissa de Zwart
Posted Tue at 12:52pm

New space agency could be jobs boom for Australia

For the past 20 years, Australia has attempted to stake its claim in the lucrative commercial space industry.

In some aspects we have done quite well. There is no doubt that we have some of the most advanced ground systems in the world, and our open, relatively unpopulated geography makes the Australian continent ideal for operations such as the Square Kilometre Array.

But despite our accomplishments on the ground, there has been very limited success for Australians wanting to get to space from our continent.

Early launch plans

The enactment of the Space Activities Act 1998 (Commonwealth), one of the first examples of a domestic commercially focused space law, was prompted by Kistler Aerospace's plans to establish a spaceport at Woomera.

That act was focused on the operations that were taking place at the time. Australia was seeing significant interest from overseas entities who wanted to capitalise on our geography for launching rockets.

Fast forward to 2018, and no commercial launch operator has yet established themselves in Australia.

Rather, we have a burgeoning commercial interest in low-cost, high-volume cube sats for Internet of Things applications.

In 2015, the Federal Government announced a review of the Space Activities Act, recognising that regulation is just as significant a barrier for the space industry as the cost involved.

In early 2017, after a significant consultative period, the Department of Industry, Innovation and Science (DIIS) recognised the need for reform, recommending the Space Activities Act be replaced.

Rise of the space agency

In the intervening time, the Government also announced the Space Capability Review and accepted its recommendation of the introduction of an Australian Space Agency.

That agency, to be headed by former CSIRO boss Megan Clark AC, will come into being on July 1, 2018. Many people consider the move to be a reaffirmation of Australia's interest in the space domain.

More than a year after the legislative proposal paper was released by the DIIS, the Space Activities Amendment (Launches and Returns) Bill 2018 received its second reading in the House of Representatives on May 30, 2018, with little fanfare or coverage.

Despite the lengthy period of consultation and the initial statements that an entirely new act would be drafted, this is a revision of the already existing legislation. It does little to inspire confidence in the Government's approach to an Australian commercial space industry.

Limited changes in legislation

This bill purports to broaden regulatory frameworks, expand the scope of the act, reduce costs to operators, and reduce barriers to entry.

Space agency to tap $420b industry: government

There are concerns Australia may be not be capitalising on the growing industry.
In some ways, it will achieve these goals. There is a reduction of the insurance requirements for operators, from a world-leading $750 million to a far more competitive $100 million.

The bill facilitates the launch of space objects from aircraft, will recognise the prevalence of overseas markets for launch operations, and introduce the ability to launch rockets reaching an altitude less than 100km — Australia's regulatory demarcation of outer space.

As noted above, the changes to the act are dwarfed by the content that is merely left in place. Operators previously complained of an act that is vague, difficult to navigate, and with prohibitive compliance costs.

Most of the changes embodied within the bill are merely in name only. A "Space Licence" becomes a "Facility Licence" with the only substantive reduction in pre-licence compliance being that the licence is no longer restricted to corporations.

The "Overseas Launch Licence" is renamed the "Overseas Payload Permit", but is not matched with any substantive changes. This would see an Australian who wishes to launch a rocket overseas need a payload permit to launch their rocket.

Further, and of significant concern to commercial operators considering whether they should base their operations in Australia or move offshore, is the requirement for all permits to "include a strategy for debris mitigation".

It is not clear what form this should take or how stringently this must comply, for example, with standards such as the Space Debris Mitigation Guidelines of the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space.


Advances overseas

If we look overseas there has been an abundance of new domestic laws that focus on promoting commercial activity while more actively aiming to protect the domain that is so important to everyday life.

Recent domestic enactments such as the British Space Industry Act 2018, the New Zealand Outer Space and High-altitude Activities Act 2017, and a plethora of US statutes recognise the need for on-orbit regulation.

Under the United Nation's Outer Space Treaty, a country is required to authorise and continually supervise non-government activities in outer space.

Australia's existing act, and this new bill, fail to do this. Regulating activities while in space is the hallmark of modern domestic space law.

Finally, there is no reference to the new Australian Space Agency. It is anticipated the agency will be the relevant regulatory body for the purposes of the act and its role will be articulated in the yet to be developed rules.

A slight element of unease creeps into the space industry in the face of this disconnect. It is hoped that this does not reflect any ambivalence to the future role of such an agency nor reflect a lack of commitment to Australia becoming a driving force in the space industry.

Melissa de Zwart is a professor in the University of Adelaide's Law School. Joel Lisk contributed to the research for this article, originally published on The Conversation.

Topics: science-and-technology, space-exploration, spacecraft, defence-industry, australia

[thorn bird]

Well, well, well,
They've left us behind again.
They got on with it, about the same time as we started our "Reform"
of aviation regulations, they finished theirs.
Their's are recognised as one of the best and safest rule sets, adopted
over most of our region and allowed their industry to grow into the third biggest
contributor to their GDP. It took them about five years and around $5 million dollars.

Ours are still not complete, are without doubt the most complicated obtuse aviation rule sets
in the world, have done absolutely nothing to contribute to a safer aviation environment
and has virtually driven our industry into the ground. The whole Australian "reform"project
has been a complete, half a billion dollar, waste of time. For the Australian aviation industry
a thirty year journey to oblivion, and the worst is yet to come.

Lots of commentary lately talking up Australia as a place to do business in the
space industry. yet the article in the previous post puts a lie to that notion.

Meanwhile across the ditch the Kiwi's have just got on with it.

On the television news tonight once again they've stolen the march. Their space industry actually
exists, is sending rockets into space and in the next few years will rival NASA in the number
of launchers per annum. NASA manages one a month, the Kiwi's will be launching one a week.

Australia doesn't even have a launch pad yet and here we are arguing about reforming the space
regulations. What a joke.

[Gobbledock]

AVIATION HAS ITS MIKE SMITH, SPACE HAS ITS ANDY THOMAS

Thorny,

What is even more embarrassing is that Australia technically has one of its own, Dr Andy Thomas, who is more than capable of heading up and leading the charge to make our space industry ‘happen’. The man is more than just an astronaut - he is a strategic, intelligent and astute scientist and businessman who would shit kilometres over the moribund muppets and agencies governing our nations interests. He is more than aware of what does and doesn’t work in real life and he knows politics. After all, he had experience working for NASA in a strategic role and on more than one occasion he has called them out over their poor decisions which included ending the shuttle program and now the American astronauts thumb their interstellar rides with the Ruskies.

I had the absolute pleasure, and privilege, to share a drink with him and talk all manner of aviation and political matters. The man pisses all over our pathetic pool of weasels, suckholes and incompetents such as McDo’nothing, Pumpkin Head MrDak, Goldman Sachs Turdball, Billy Bigtits, Sir Anus Houston (how ironic - Houston!), Barnyard Joyce and a myriad of other freaks...

“Bureaucratic black holes for all”