[Kharon]

Handy tool, the alphabet. A powerful tool for communication; but, the individual letters, standing alone cannot convey a notion or philosophy, if they are combined into a simple word – like If – they can and do make a powerful weapon.

The four threads here, one for each of the GA alphabet groups seem to show a couple of interesting things emerging: essentially the membership all seem to be wanting the same things.  The ‘big’ name groups such as RAA and AAAA (?) are saying pretty much the same thing.  This nullifies the need for more chat and half assed survey, the demands of industry were drafted for the Forsyth reform push.  Sadly that push has, like a wave on the shore, disintegrated, the force dissipated.  

What has (IMO) become clearly defined is conquest by division works very well, the natural protection of group interest the wedge used to prevent the tribes joining together and forming a strong, cohesive force for change, for the general good.  

The missing element is a ‘leader’, there is a perfectly serviceable rally point (several) but the tribes lack the direction and focus which a ‘leader’ can provide; a Churchill, a Napoleon a Mandela if you will.  There are suitable ‘internal’ candidates, Cannane, De Stoop to name a but a few, Hurst another.  But, they do, as they must, have a particular interest in the groups they represent. 

I believe David Forsyth – or someone very like him should be approached – to lead the tribe out of Egypt, across the Red sea into the land of milk and honey.  The various boards and councils would then have a place to deposit the request and requirements of membership and a ‘leader’ who can take the fight to where it needs to go.  

Whether or not such a person can be found; and the willingness of the tribes to join forces is not a question I can answer – but one thing stands out – without a concerted effort the tribes are doomed to wander, aimlessly and alone through the wasteland, weak, isolated and easily managed.  

Food for thought twiddle?  Yes it is – but.

[crankybastards]

CASA have used the old military axiom of divide and conquer for years. Until this strategy is universally recognized the Lemmings will continue to be lemmings and seek a picturesque vantage point to have further discussions. Usually with CASA blessing and promotion.

[thorn bird]

Aww jezz, Cranky, did you have to bring up Lemmings!! Cute little furry creatures??

What about us homo sapiens???

Part 61 MOS, as far as my feeble brain interprets, requires some of us to commit suicide.

Does any government have the power to require its citizens to commit suicide??

Well no, but it appears independent government enterprises do.

Part 61 MOS, a legal requirement. If you conducted stalling as prescribed by law in the MOS in a swept wing high performance aircraft, you would more than likely die.

Not that I'm suggesting any sane person would, but if they didn't they are breaking the law, but if they were stupid enough to try, and killed themselves, who would be responsible??

[Kharon]

Hitch and the Choc frog award.

The latest ‘Last Minute Hitch’ article has been quoted three times this iteration; that’s a Tim Tam.  It’s not a loud voice, but it does have lines of communication with those who have slightly larger drums to beat and is another valuable asset to those who need to be not only heard, but understood.

We need to thank Hitch for his efforts and perhaps, like Ken Cannane – communicate more with Hitch and his fellow scribes.  The use of sane, balanced well crafted articles can and does have an impact of perception and can help gather support for what is a just cause; the Forsyth review.  The ASRR must be kept to the forefront – it’s a battle to do so as the opposition are trying to bury it in spin and rhetoric.  Industry must keep throwing the manure back over the dividing fence, if it is to survive.

Nice one Hitch, enjoy the TT with your coffee and the satisfaction of a job well done.  The piece may not win you an award, but it has earned our respect.   Cheers.

Toot toot.

[Peetwo]

Hitch and the Choc frog award.

The latest ‘Last Minute Hitch’ article has been quoted three times this iteration; that’s a Tim Tam.  It’s not a loud voice, but it does have lines of communication with those who have slightly larger drums to beat and is another valuable asset to those who need to be not only heard, but understood.

We need to thank Hitch for his efforts and perhaps, like Ken Cannane – communicate more with Hitch and his fellow scribes.  The use of sane, balanced well crafted articles can and does have an impact of perception and can help gather support for what is a just cause; the Forsyth review.  The ASRR must be kept to the forefront – it’s a battle to do so as the opposition are trying to bury it in spin and rhetoric.  Industry must keep throwing the manure back over the dividing fence, if it is to survive.

Nice one Hitch, enjoy the TT with your coffee and the satisfaction of a job well done.  The piece may not win you an award, but it has earned our respect.   Cheers.

Toot toot.

Also Ferryman an additional quote from Hitch today on Australian ATC retrospective: 

Well according to Hitch in last week's weekly wrap the CASA OAR have stealthily & cynically white-anted the effective historical conduit with industry i.e the RAPACs -  : The Last Minute Hitch: 27 November 2015

Who's heard of RAPACs? These are the Regional Airspace Procedures and Advisory Committees, and there is one in your state. What they do is advise the Office of Airspace Regulation (OAR) on matters of airspace usage in the local areas. RAPACs are a way of getting the users heard in the OAR, but now it seems the OAR no longer wants to listen. What they've done is attempt to redefine the RAPACs to limit them to safety issues. That conveniently silences them over things like radio frequencies ... coincidentally (or not) a current topic being shuttle-cocked between Canberra and the aviation community. Happliy, CASA has announced a review of the OAR and the way it functions. Needless to say, those pesky RAPACs have made an inconvenience of themselves in their submission. If anyone in the aviation community wants to do the same, the details of the review and how to submit are on the CASA website.

Hmm..we were just talking about CASA's divide & conquer tactics in making industry submissive to Iron Ring/Fist policy... 
 
Q/ So Hitch will we get to actually see the RAPACs submissions?

&..next from Skimore Corner:

Sorry Hitch been busy mate but as always your weekly wrap was far better than the relevant blogpiece...cheers P2  : The Last Minute Hitch: 27 November 2015

CASA has announced a restructure into three client-focused groups. The idea is to improve communication and make the regulator more efficient. This was called for in Recommendation 21 of the Forsyth Report, and should result in major changes within. Here's hoping it works. History has shown that when large organisations restructure, the result can be one of two things: a quantum change that revolutionises the entity and is subsequently copied throughout an industry, or an expensive reshuffle that looks brilliant on the outside, but does either nothing or makes things worse. Over time, the latter tends, through natural process, the morph back into the original structure. In this case, CASA, through our input to the Forsyth Report, is complying with our demands. Putting on my "between-the-lines" glasses, I see a mathematical problem. Each group will probably need an executive or deputy director (or some other title) as its head. Currently, there are nine positions within CASA commensurate with a role of that type. Some are currently vacant, but not six of them, so the carpet to the front door might get some extraordinary wear and tear in the coming months from the feet of those exiting. Nailed it mate... 

&..finally from off the AMROBA thread:

And speaking of reforms, the Aviation Maintenance Repair and Overhaul Business Association (AMROBA) has again called for the Civil Aviation Act to be reviewed and some of the promised culture changes included. This would, theoretically, make them permanent rather than just current policy. Well, it would make them as permanent as the government anyway. If it's easy to make changes to the Act to include, it has to be just as easy for the next government to change the Act to exclude. Still, it would make a statement to the industry that the minister is at least very serious about keeping the reforms going.

But in the eyes of AMROBA, just what are the reforms won for their membership? Whereas we have seen plenty of action on Parts  61, 141 and 142, the maintenance regs, which have the capacity to do some serious mischief to the health of the industry, don't seem to me to be getting similar attention. Either that or the new leadership just doesn't get the point. I would think the MROs issues would also warrant a task-force approach.

[Kharon]

CASA policy; writ in 60 words.

Hitch – “What they do is advise the Office of Airspace Regulation (OAR) on matters of airspace usage in the local areas. RAPACs are a way of getting the users heard in the OAR, but now it seems the OAR no longer wants to listen. What they've done is attempt to redefine the RAPACs to limit them to safety issues.”

Well, there’s a little chink of honesty shining through the murk.  Finally and admission that they were not ever seriously listening, now at least we know that.  

The tragedy is how much time, effort, common sense and good solid advice has been disregarded, denigrated and dismissed.  Clearly the OAR cannot manage their brief – the breath taking arrogance of dismissing free advice and favouring their own homespun grotesque notions says much about the pathway taken to the current mess.

The moment it was publicly declared that Forsyth was just a ‘view’, a discussion paper, every alarm bell should have rung.  OAR reflect accurately the Skidmore actions conducted behind the smiling, feel good façade.

MTF – You bet; and soon..... .

[Peetwo]

United we stand divided we fall!

To perhaps highlight what can be achieved through industry stakeholder cohesion, the following is a post I made on CVD Pilots thread that makes a point of difference on standing up for pilot rights, in particular on medical certification, between here & the US of A:

Pilot Medical certification - Point of difference US v Oz.

Rehash of Sandy's excellent post off CASA meets the Press (note No 7. in bold): 

If anyone actually has been taken in by this latest CASA soft soap, “The advisory panel will meet formally as required and at other times I expect its members to be in close contact with the CASA taskforce as work progresses.’’....well pity help us.
Surely it can be seen for what it is, just a softening, until the industry is so worn out that further resistance will be feeble and futile.

As far as I an concerned it would be traitorous to get on board with this travesty of "industry consultation".

Gentlemen and ladies all the recommendations, reports, submissions, and talkfests have been done. "Cautiously welcomed by industry"??????? Never seen more rubbish, if this is even slightly true then please you extraordinary and gullible optimists, all two or three of you, if you really exist, please, please do not be taken and led by hand into the mire of obfuscation, ego stroking platitudes, soothing words and the half truths all designed to stretch time and perpetuate the supremacy, status and salaries of CASA.  

We must resist and demand real reform now. Aviation businesses are going down the drain, your fellow aviator Aussies are trying to make ends meet while staring down both barrels. This is no joke, no cooperation, no more talking, no more kow towing, no more smarmy smiles and handshakes. Enough is enough. The Mad Hatter's tea party is over. If you are not quite convinced see what they tried to do to the late Mr Green, what they have done to Dom James and John Quadrio. Tips of iceberg.

Non negotiable reforms before any, stress any, cooperation:-
1. Delete reference to flight "privileges" from the rules. Free people have a right to fly.
2. Amend the Act to include the health of the industry, safety cannot improve without a growing and healthy industry.
3. Allow individual instructors to teach without our super expensive Air Operators Certificate, as in US 70% taught this way.
4. Allow LAMEs to maintain aircraft without Certificate of Approval, like US.
5. Remove the strict liability provisions from the regulations and most of the criminal law to be migrated to civil law.
6. Simplify the rules like FAA or NZ.
7.  No more AVMED for PPLs, car driving standard is proven just as safe.

Remember how quickly the immigration rules were changed when the pilots went on strike? Hawke said bring in pilots from other countries, mainly the US, they were here in days. These pilots were trained as above point point 3.

Certainly makes good common sense to me - Bring it ON!

However the reality is Sandy's point 1 to 7 are just pipe dreams here in Oz while aviation safety regulation/administration remain under the control of the toxic, archaic, sociopathic culture of the Iron Ring.

Point 7 'Point of Difference.    

The following is pinched off the UP

GregP -

CASA Medical Incompetence

---

A couple of weeks ago i did my Class2 renewal; with all the requested ophthalmology and endocrinology reports together with a positive report from my GP with excellent pathology plus a positive report from my DAME (who then reissued my med cert).

Weeks later, some clerk at CASA writes to me for additional info from the ophthalmologist (a specialist in private practice certified by CASA itself) after he's certified my as having faultless vision and good general ophthalmic health. Not satisfied with that, the idiots now want even more form that specialist who has now reported positively again regarding my vision and ophthalmic health.

Not satisfied with that nonsense, the idiots then write to tell me i must undergo a cardiac stress test (notwithstanding that i had one a few months ago with perfect results). When i rang the idiots today to remind them that a CASA doctor wrote to me a bit over year ago to say that i would have to do another stress test only if the DAME scored me as greater that 15. But when i reminded the clerk that the DAME rated me a few weeks ago as exactly 15, the idiot clerk at the other end said that the CASA doctor shouldn't have written to me stipulating the +15 score!

Clearly, my medcert (assuming i ever see another one!) will not be effective for anything like 2 years. And the cost will have beaten me by then anyway!

Is one to assume that the (mere) clerks at CASA have greater authority than CASA's own in-house doctors? What disgraceful nonsense .. thank heavens we're not at war because the staff work of these cretins is utterly dreadful.

Eyrie -

The joke here is that aviation medicals have NOTHING to do with aviation safety.


Our friends in the US look like getting them severely downgraded for private pilots. I looked into that a couple of years ago and since the early 1970s there have been at least 3 large scale studies of the efficacy of aviation medicals. There is a natural control group of private glider and hot air balloon pilots who self certify in the US (and in Australia for glider pilots - not sure about balloons, it has been a long time since I was peripherally involved with hot air balloons. The results were that there was ZERO evidence that medical causes were a serious cause of accidents(well under 1% of them) and the self certifying group had a slightly lower incidence of them.

Before some idiot goes on about how gliding is less stressful medically - it isn't. Try flying solo for up to 8 to 10 hours or more, no autopilot, in turbulence and pulling around 1.4 g for a significant part of the time, with the sun beating into the cockpit.

So we've run that experiment and the results are clear.

As for endangering others on the ground, can anyone here recall when a private pilot or glider pilot injured or killed an innocent third party on the ground in Australia due to any cause?

I know of two accidents, one a fatality (photographer standing on top of a car had his head knocked off - I'm sure you can all draw your own conclusions about flying so that your wingtip is within 2 meters of an obstacle on the ground), involving gliders overseas. Medical certification would not have helped in those.

That pretty much takes care of the "endangering others" bs.

So we are left with protection of other airspace users and a case can certainly be made out that being able to see properly is a good idea although the ATSB seems keen on telling everybody to forget that as it doesn't work. Well it definitely won't work if you don't look.

Now consider the case when you drive a car. The chance of killing or injuring an innocent pedestrian, another road user or someone just minding his own business in his house (cars and trucks seem to impact houses in Australia every week or two it seems) due to a medical problem such as sudden incapacitation for any reason must be much higher. Let alone fools who text or use the cellphone while driving.

Not much medical certification there. In Queensland they don't even do eye tests any more to my optometrist's disgust as he gets people in who he finds to be legally blind, who drove there. A few years ago there was a case where a female diabetic passed out at the wheel on the Sunshine Coast Motorway, crossed the median and went head on into a car coming the other way, killing a small child in the other car. Went free. She was a GP who should have known better and been held to it.

As for this drivel "As a medical student, I can see the benefits of this, if someone turns up in emergency alone, unconscious, you can look up their medical history with may assist with a quicker diagnosis of the problem, and therefore quicker treatment, and potentially save their life."

Unless they have ID in their wallet or purse, how do you know who they are? If they do they should have a little card in the wallet that describes any dangerous or bothersome medical condition. FFS given the propensity to cover your skin in ink that is in vogue they could even get a small discreet tattoo.

Creampuff -

Well said, E.


AVMED's recent decision-making is one of the starkest examples of decision-making that is not based on objective evidence or objective risk. It is based primarily on AVMED's messianic belief that they are carrying the primary burden of aviation safety because, according to the erstwhile PMO, a pilot’s licence goes on forever, but it is the medical certificate which enables the person to use the licence. All of the other so-called specialists and experts can have their opinions, but it is ultimately AVMED who bear the terrible burden of allowing a pilot to fly. And if that burden has been imposed on AVMED, it must surely follow that AVMED knows better that everyone else.

Amazingly, the pilots who have been allowed to fly for decades without NAA medical certificates have not caused carnage as a consequence of their sudden incapacitation. Amazingly, the pilots who do have NAA medical certificates suffer the same rate of sudden incapacity as the general population.

The current regime has little grasp on what causes the substantial risks to aviation safety, or how to mitigate them. If they did have that grasp, they'd realise they're a sideshow. They'd also realise that, as has been pointed out by people like Dr Liddell who do know, that all AVMED is now doing is encouraging pilots to take the risk of telling their DAME and AVMED as little as possible and not seeking medical advice about something that may turn out to be serious if not treated.

Unfortunately, AVMED has been allowed to get out of control and nobody with the power to get them back under control particularly cares.

Okay now reflect on the following courtesy of AOPA (US) :

Aviation groups urge passage of medical reform

17 groups sign letter to key Senate committee


331641
November 17, 2015
By Elizabeth A Tennyson

Seventeen aviation groups have sent a joint letter to leaders of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, urging them to pass third class medical reform and other measures designed to protect general aviation pilots.

In the Nov. 16 letter, AOPA and others urged the committee to adopt the Manchin Amendment to the Pilot’s Bill of Rights 2 (PBR2), which is scheduled to be considered by the committee later in the week. Other amendments to PBR2 will also be considered at that time.

Noting that third class medical reform is a pivotal issue for the future of general aviation, the aviation groups told the committee that the “FAA’s medical certification system has evolved into an onerous and costly one. The FAA recognized that fact more than 10 years ago when it created the Sport Pilot standard of medical certification.”

The letter went on to note that proposed third class medical reforms could save pilots more than $20 million each year and save the FAA approximately $2.5 million each year.

“We have never been closer to achieving meaningful third class medical reform, and this letter is indicative of the widespread support this measure enjoys in the general aviation community,” said AOPA President Mark Baker. “Pilots want and need relief from the outdated and unreasonably burdensome third class medical process, and this legislation would allow hundreds of thousands of pilots to fly safely while saving them, and the FAA, both time and money.”

In addition to promoting third class medical reforms, the Manchin Amendment includes reforms to the FAA’s Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) program, which ensures pilots receive critical safety information as part of their preflight preparation, and provides protections to volunteer pilots who fly in the public interest.

The letter supporting the amendment was signed by AOPA and the Academy of Model Aeronautics, Allied Pilots Association, Commemorative Air Force, Experimental Aircraft Association, Flying Dentists Association, Flying Physicians Association, General Aviation Manufacturers Association, Helicopter Association International, International Council of Air Shows, National Agricultural Aviation Association, National Association of State Aviation Officials, National Air Transportation Association, National Business Aviation Association, NetJets Association of Shared Aircraft Pilots, Recreational Aviation Foundation, and Southwest Airlines Pilots’ Association.

The Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation has set Nov. 18 as the date to move S. 571, better known as PBR2. The legislation, which was sponsored by Sens. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), and John Boozman (R-Ark.), boasts 69 bipartisan cosponsors in the Senate.

It would allow hundreds of thousands of pilots who have held a valid third class medical, either regular or special issuance, over the past 10 years to fly without needing to get another FAA medical exam. It would apply to pilots flying VFR or IFR in aircraft weighing up to 6,000 pounds and carrying up to five passengers at altitudes below 18,000 feet and speeds up to 250 knots.

For pilots whose medical certificate lapsed more than 10 years ago and those who have never held a medical certificate, a one-time medical certification will be required. Once a pilot has been medically certified once, either through the regular or special-issuance processes, he or she will also be able to fly indefinitely without needing to go through the FAA medical certification process again. Pilots with certain medical factors, including some cardiac, psychological, or neurological conditions, will have to get a special issuance medical one time only. For more information, visit AOPA’s frequently asked questions regarding third class medical reform.



Elizabeth A Tennyson | Senior Director of Communications, AOPA
AOPA Senior Director of Communications Elizabeth Tennyson is an instrument-rated private pilot who first joined AOPA in 1998.

I know different political animal and the mere concept of a 'Pilot Bill of Rights' getting anywhere near the PH halls of Cant'berra, is a fantasy that would make Beaker look like a - most respected, credible - human being, instead of a glove-Muppet.

However it does show what can be achieved if aviation stakeholder groups - with varying & differing agendas - put away their differences for the greater good & longevity of the industry.

In an update here is where the PBOR2 proposed legislation amendment has progressed since the above article was published, courtesy AvWeb.. :

Medical Reform Bill En Route To Senate Floor


By Elaine Kauh | December 9, 2015

Related Articles

• Medical Helicopter Crashes In California, Four Dead
  
• Airlines Banning Hoverboards Over Fire Concerns
  
• First Fatal Eclipse Crash In Africa
  
• Pilot Complaints Cite Christmas Light Displays
  

Third-class medical reform legislation is on its way to the Senate floor after gaining approval from the Commerce, Science and Transportation committee Wednesday. The committee had delayed its vote in November on the Pilot’s Bill of Rights 2 for lack of a quorum, and now its advocates hope for a Senate vote later this month. The bill would exempt pilots with third-class medicals from recurring visits to an aviation medical examiner if they self-certify their fitness to fly, take an online aeromedical course biennially, and visit a doctor at least once every four years. The doctor’s visits will be required to include a checklist of items typically included in a physical or medical exam. Pilots who don’t yet have a medical or have had their medical lapse for more than 10 years also would need a one-time visit to an AME to obtain certification. The measure would allow pilots to fly VFR and IFR in aircraft under 6,000 pounds, with up to five passengers. The 10-year window and doctor visits were compromises from a previous proposal for full third-class medical exemptions.

“Bringing the legislation this far has required persistence and compromise in order to get the very best possible deal for pilots while winning the support needed to keep medical reform on the table,” AOPA President Mark Baker said Wednesday. “The Pilot’s Bill of Rights 2 frees pilots to work with their personal physicians to manage their own health, wellness, and fitness to fly.” The legislation now has 70 Senate co-sponsors, while a House version has 151 co-sponsors. “While all legislation goes through twists and turns, the key point is that pilots will be able to avoid the complexity and expense that is inherent in the current third-class medical certification process,” said Jack Pelton, EAA chairman and CEO.

    
MTF..P2

[Gobbledock]

May I suggest that all CAsA employees, whether they be the 'CEO' or the window cleaner be subjected to the same level of testing as pilots are. They can lead by example. And heck, as CAsA likes to tell us it really isn't that hard of a standard to attain. Let's see them have the cardiac, sight, endocrinology, cough and squeeze test, the full gamut. It's a brilliant idea.

Does make you wonder how that useless old pensioner Farq'u'hard'son was granted an A380 endorsement doesn't it?

[Peetwo]

United we stand divided we fall!

To perhaps highlight what can be achieved through industry stakeholder cohesion, the following is a post I made on CVD Pilots thread that makes a point of difference on standing up for pilot rights, in particular on medical certification, between here & the US of A:

Pilot Medical certification - Point of difference US v Oz.

Rehash of Sandy's excellent post off CASA meets the Press (note No 7. in bold): 

If anyone actually has been taken in by this latest CASA soft soap, “The advisory panel will meet formally as required and at other times I expect its members to be in close contact with the CASA taskforce as work progresses.’’....well pity help us.
Surely it can be seen for what it is, just a softening, until the industry is so worn out that further resistance will be feeble and futile.

As far as I an concerned it would be traitorous to get on board with this travesty of "industry consultation".

Gentlemen and ladies all the recommendations, reports, submissions, and talkfests have been done. "Cautiously welcomed by industry"??????? Never seen more rubbish, if this is even slightly true then please you extraordinary and gullible optimists, all two or three of you, if you really exist, please, please do not be taken and led by hand into the mire of obfuscation, ego stroking platitudes, soothing words and the half truths all designed to stretch time and perpetuate the supremacy, status and salaries of CASA.  

We must resist and demand real reform now. Aviation businesses are going down the drain, your fellow aviator Aussies are trying to make ends meet while staring down both barrels. This is no joke, no cooperation, no more talking, no more kow towing, no more smarmy smiles and handshakes. Enough is enough. The Mad Hatter's tea party is over. If you are not quite convinced see what they tried to do to the late Mr Green, what they have done to Dom James and John Quadrio. Tips of iceberg.

Non negotiable reforms before any, stress any, cooperation:-
1. Delete reference to flight "privileges" from the rules. Free people have a right to fly.
2. Amend the Act to include the health of the industry, safety cannot improve without a growing and healthy industry.
3. Allow individual instructors to teach without our super expensive Air Operators Certificate, as in US 70% taught this way.
4. Allow LAMEs to maintain aircraft without Certificate of Approval, like US.
5. Remove the strict liability provisions from the regulations and most of the criminal law to be migrated to civil law.
6. Simplify the rules like FAA or NZ.
7.  No more AVMED for PPLs, car driving standard is proven just as safe.

Remember how quickly the immigration rules were changed when the pilots went on strike? Hawke said bring in pilots from other countries, mainly the US, they were here in days. These pilots were trained as above point point 3.

Certainly makes good common sense to me - Bring it ON!

However the reality is Sandy's point 1 to 7 are just pipe dreams here in Oz while aviation safety regulation/administration remain under the control of the toxic, archaic, sociopathic culture of the Iron Ring.

Point 7 'Point of Difference.    

The following is pinched off the UP

GregP -

CASA Medical Incompetence

---

A couple of weeks ago i did my Class2 renewal; with all the requested ophthalmology and endocrinology reports together with a positive report from my GP with excellent pathology plus a positive report from my DAME (who then reissued my med cert).

Weeks later, some clerk at CASA writes to me for additional info from the ophthalmologist (a specialist in private practice certified by CASA itself) after he's certified my as having faultless vision and good general ophthalmic health. Not satisfied with that, the idiots now want even more form that specialist who has now reported positively again regarding my vision and ophthalmic health.

Not satisfied with that nonsense, the idiots then write to tell me i must undergo a cardiac stress test (notwithstanding that i had one a few months ago with perfect results). When i rang the idiots today to remind them that a CASA doctor wrote to me a bit over year ago to say that i would have to do another stress test only if the DAME scored me as greater that 15. But when i reminded the clerk that the DAME rated me a few weeks ago as exactly 15, the idiot clerk at the other end said that the CASA doctor shouldn't have written to me stipulating the +15 score!

Clearly, my medcert (assuming i ever see another one!) will not be effective for anything like 2 years. And the cost will have beaten me by then anyway!

Is one to assume that the (mere) clerks at CASA have greater authority than CASA's own in-house doctors? What disgraceful nonsense .. thank heavens we're not at war because the staff work of these cretins is utterly dreadful.

Eyrie -

The joke here is that aviation medicals have NOTHING to do with aviation safety.


Our friends in the US look like getting them severely downgraded for private pilots. I looked into that a couple of years ago and since the early 1970s there have been at least 3 large scale studies of the efficacy of aviation medicals. There is a natural control group of private glider and hot air balloon pilots who self certify in the US (and in Australia for glider pilots - not sure about balloons, it has been a long time since I was peripherally involved with hot air balloons. The results were that there was ZERO evidence that medical causes were a serious cause of accidents(well under 1% of them) and the self certifying group had a slightly lower incidence of them.

Before some idiot goes on about how gliding is less stressful medically - it isn't. Try flying solo for up to 8 to 10 hours or more, no autopilot, in turbulence and pulling around 1.4 g for a significant part of the time, with the sun beating into the cockpit.

So we've run that experiment and the results are clear.

As for endangering others on the ground, can anyone here recall when a private pilot or glider pilot injured or killed an innocent third party on the ground in Australia due to any cause?

I know of two accidents, one a fatality (photographer standing on top of a car had his head knocked off - I'm sure you can all draw your own conclusions about flying so that your wingtip is within 2 meters of an obstacle on the ground), involving gliders overseas. Medical certification would not have helped in those.

That pretty much takes care of the "endangering others" bs.

So we are left with protection of other airspace users and a case can certainly be made out that being able to see properly is a good idea although the ATSB seems keen on telling everybody to forget that as it doesn't work. Well it definitely won't work if you don't look.

Now consider the case when you drive a car. The chance of killing or injuring an innocent pedestrian, another road user or someone just minding his own business in his house (cars and trucks seem to impact houses in Australia every week or two it seems) due to a medical problem such as sudden incapacitation for any reason must be much higher. Let alone fools who text or use the cellphone while driving.

Not much medical certification there. In Queensland they don't even do eye tests any more to my optometrist's disgust as he gets people in who he finds to be legally blind, who drove there. A few years ago there was a case where a female diabetic passed out at the wheel on the Sunshine Coast Motorway, crossed the median and went head on into a car coming the other way, killing a small child in the other car. Went free. She was a GP who should have known better and been held to it.

As for this drivel "As a medical student, I can see the benefits of this, if someone turns up in emergency alone, unconscious, you can look up their medical history with may assist with a quicker diagnosis of the problem, and therefore quicker treatment, and potentially save their life."

Unless they have ID in their wallet or purse, how do you know who they are? If they do they should have a little card in the wallet that describes any dangerous or bothersome medical condition. FFS given the propensity to cover your skin in ink that is in vogue they could even get a small discreet tattoo.

Creampuff -

Well said, E.


AVMED's recent decision-making is one of the starkest examples of decision-making that is not based on objective evidence or objective risk. It is based primarily on AVMED's messianic belief that they are carrying the primary burden of aviation safety because, according to the erstwhile PMO, a pilot’s licence goes on forever, but it is the medical certificate which enables the person to use the licence. All of the other so-called specialists and experts can have their opinions, but it is ultimately AVMED who bear the terrible burden of allowing a pilot to fly. And if that burden has been imposed on AVMED, it must surely follow that AVMED knows better that everyone else.

Amazingly, the pilots who have been allowed to fly for decades without NAA medical certificates have not caused carnage as a consequence of their sudden incapacitation. Amazingly, the pilots who do have NAA medical certificates suffer the same rate of sudden incapacity as the general population.

The current regime has little grasp on what causes the substantial risks to aviation safety, or how to mitigate them. If they did have that grasp, they'd realise they're a sideshow. They'd also realise that, as has been pointed out by people like Dr Liddell who do know, that all AVMED is now doing is encouraging pilots to take the risk of telling their DAME and AVMED as little as possible and not seeking medical advice about something that may turn out to be serious if not treated.

Unfortunately, AVMED has been allowed to get out of control and nobody with the power to get them back under control particularly cares.

Okay now reflect on the following courtesy of AOPA (US) :

Aviation groups urge passage of medical reform

17 groups sign letter to key Senate committee


331641
November 17, 2015
By Elizabeth A Tennyson

Seventeen aviation groups have sent a joint letter to leaders of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, urging them to pass third class medical reform and other measures designed to protect general aviation pilots.

In the Nov. 16 letter, AOPA and others urged the committee to adopt the Manchin Amendment to the Pilot’s Bill of Rights 2 (PBR2), which is scheduled to be considered by the committee later in the week. Other amendments to PBR2 will also be considered at that time.

Noting that third class medical reform is a pivotal issue for the future of general aviation, the aviation groups told the committee that the “FAA’s medical certification system has evolved into an onerous and costly one. The FAA recognized that fact more than 10 years ago when it created the Sport Pilot standard of medical certification.”

The letter went on to note that proposed third class medical reforms could save pilots more than $20 million each year and save the FAA approximately $2.5 million each year.

“We have never been closer to achieving meaningful third class medical reform, and this letter is indicative of the widespread support this measure enjoys in the general aviation community,” said AOPA President Mark Baker. “Pilots want and need relief from the outdated and unreasonably burdensome third class medical process, and this legislation would allow hundreds of thousands of pilots to fly safely while saving them, and the FAA, both time and money.”

In addition to promoting third class medical reforms, the Manchin Amendment includes reforms to the FAA’s Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) program, which ensures pilots receive critical safety information as part of their preflight preparation, and provides protections to volunteer pilots who fly in the public interest.

The letter supporting the amendment was signed by AOPA and the Academy of Model Aeronautics, Allied Pilots Association, Commemorative Air Force, Experimental Aircraft Association, Flying Dentists Association, Flying Physicians Association, General Aviation Manufacturers Association, Helicopter Association International, International Council of Air Shows, National Agricultural Aviation Association, National Association of State Aviation Officials, National Air Transportation Association, National Business Aviation Association, NetJets Association of Shared Aircraft Pilots, Recreational Aviation Foundation, and Southwest Airlines Pilots’ Association.

The Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation has set Nov. 18 as the date to move S. 571, better known as PBR2. The legislation, which was sponsored by Sens. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), and John Boozman (R-Ark.), boasts 69 bipartisan cosponsors in the Senate.

It would allow hundreds of thousands of pilots who have held a valid third class medical, either regular or special issuance, over the past 10 years to fly without needing to get another FAA medical exam. It would apply to pilots flying VFR or IFR in aircraft weighing up to 6,000 pounds and carrying up to five passengers at altitudes below 18,000 feet and speeds up to 250 knots.

For pilots whose medical certificate lapsed more than 10 years ago and those who have never held a medical certificate, a one-time medical certification will be required. Once a pilot has been medically certified once, either through the regular or special-issuance processes, he or she will also be able to fly indefinitely without needing to go through the FAA medical certification process again. Pilots with certain medical factors, including some cardiac, psychological, or neurological conditions, will have to get a special issuance medical one time only. For more information, visit AOPA’s frequently asked questions regarding third class medical reform.



Elizabeth A Tennyson | Senior Director of Communications, AOPA
AOPA Senior Director of Communications Elizabeth Tennyson is an instrument-rated private pilot who first joined AOPA in 1998.

I know different political animal and the mere concept of a 'Pilot Bill of Rights' getting anywhere near the PH halls of Cant'berra, is a fantasy that would make Beaker look like a - most respected, credible - human being, instead of a glove-Muppet.

However it does show what can be achieved if aviation stakeholder groups - with varying & differing agendas - put away their differences for the greater good & longevity of the industry.

In an update here is where the PBOR2 proposed legislation amendment has progressed since the above article was published, courtesy AvWeb.. :

Medical Reform Bill En Route To Senate Floor


By Elaine Kauh | December 9, 2015

Related Articles

• Medical Helicopter Crashes In California, Four Dead
  
• Airlines Banning Hoverboards Over Fire Concerns
  
• First Fatal Eclipse Crash In Africa
  
• Pilot Complaints Cite Christmas Light Displays
  

Third-class medical reform legislation is on its way to the Senate floor after gaining approval from the Commerce, Science and Transportation committee Wednesday. The committee had delayed its vote in November on the Pilot’s Bill of Rights 2 for lack of a quorum, and now its advocates hope for a Senate vote later this month. The bill would exempt pilots with third-class medicals from recurring visits to an aviation medical examiner if they self-certify their fitness to fly, take an online aeromedical course biennially, and visit a doctor at least once every four years. The doctor’s visits will be required to include a checklist of items typically included in a physical or medical exam. Pilots who don’t yet have a medical or have had their medical lapse for more than 10 years also would need a one-time visit to an AME to obtain certification. The measure would allow pilots to fly VFR and IFR in aircraft under 6,000 pounds, with up to five passengers. The 10-year window and doctor visits were compromises from a previous proposal for full third-class medical exemptions.

“Bringing the legislation this far has required persistence and compromise in order to get the very best possible deal for pilots while winning the support needed to keep medical reform on the table,” AOPA President Mark Baker said Wednesday. “The Pilot’s Bill of Rights 2 frees pilots to work with their personal physicians to manage their own health, wellness, and fitness to fly.” The legislation now has 70 Senate co-sponsors, while a House version has 151 co-sponsors. “While all legislation goes through twists and turns, the key point is that pilots will be able to avoid the complexity and expense that is inherent in the current third-class medical certification process,” said Jack Pelton, EAA chairman and CEO.

    
Pilot's Bill of Rights 2 Advances

MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

Medical Reform Bill En Route To Senate Floor


By Elaine Kauh | December 9, 2015

Related Articles

• Medical Helicopter Crashes In California, Four Dead
  
• Airlines Banning Hoverboards Over Fire Concerns
  
• First Fatal Eclipse Crash In Africa
  
• Pilot Complaints Cite Christmas Light Displays
  

Third-class medical reform legislation is on its way to the Senate floor after gaining approval from the Commerce, Science and Transportation committee Wednesday. The committee had delayed its vote in November on the Pilot’s Bill of Rights 2 for lack of a quorum, and now its advocates hope for a Senate vote later this month. The bill would exempt pilots with third-class medicals from recurring visits to an aviation medical examiner if they self-certify their fitness to fly, take an online aeromedical course biennially, and visit a doctor at least once every four years. The doctor’s visits will be required to include a checklist of items typically included in a physical or medical exam. Pilots who don’t yet have a medical or have had their medical lapse for more than 10 years also would need a one-time visit to an AME to obtain certification. The measure would allow pilots to fly VFR and IFR in aircraft under 6,000 pounds, with up to five passengers. The 10-year window and doctor visits were compromises from a previous proposal for full third-class medical exemptions.

“Bringing the legislation this far has required persistence and compromise in order to get the very best possible deal for pilots while winning the support needed to keep medical reform on the table,” AOPA President Mark Baker said Wednesday. “The Pilot’s Bill of Rights 2 frees pilots to work with their personal physicians to manage their own health, wellness, and fitness to fly.” The legislation now has 70 Senate co-sponsors, while a House version has 151 co-sponsors. “While all legislation goes through twists and turns, the key point is that pilots will be able to avoid the complexity and expense that is inherent in the current third-class medical certification process,” said Jack Pelton, EAA chairman and CEO.

    
Pilot's Bill of Rights 2 Advances

The PBOR2 gets up in the Senate..

Press release from the US NBAA:

Senate Approves Pilots' Rights Bill With NBAA Provisions Protecting Airmen

Contact: Dan Hubbard, (202) 783-9360, dhubbard@nbaa.org

Washington, DC, Dec. 15, 2015 ­– The National Business Aviation Association (NBAA) commends the Senate on its approval of S.571, the Pilots’ Bill of Rights 2 (PBOR2), which includes NBAA-sponsored language that will ensure aviators facing enforcement action have an opportunity to prepare a proper defense, as well as important third-class medical reform.

The measure must also be approved by the House of Representatives before going on to President Barack Obama for his signature.

"NBAA applauds the Senate for passing this important legislation,” said NBAA President and CEO Ed Bolen. “We especially want to recognize the leadership of Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) in introducing the bill, and working with 70 Senate co-sponsors to achieve this important legislative victory for the general aviation community. We are pleased that this bill provides needed reforms for third-class medicals and expands the due-process rights of airmen."

In 2014, members of the NBAA Regulatory Issues Advisory Group joined Dick Doubrava, the association’s vice president for government affairs, and Brian Koester, NBAA’s manager of operations, in drafting language for the bill that would ensure pilots have an opportunity to prepare a proper defense when time is of the essence.

The provision approved by the Senate requires the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to hand over the enforcement investigative report when serving emergency orders, and upon request in all other cases.

While the original PBOR legislation required timely release of such documentation, many pilots reported that the FAA was not consistently releasing this information in sufficient time to enable pilots to mount a proper legal defense.

“PBOR2, as approved by the Senate, requires that pilots and other certificate holders facing FAA enforcement actions are granted due process under law and treated fairly during enforcement proceedings,” said Koester. “With this bill, pilots are assured every opportunity to protect their airman certificate, which is often tied to their livelihood.”

The PBOR2 legislation also outlines specific actions the FAA may not take, should the agency fail to provide timely notifications at the start of the investigation to individuals facing enforcement action. The final House and Senate PBOR2 bills would also prohibit the FAA from moving forward with any enforcement action, should the agency fail to provide such notifications.

In another important provision, PBOR2 also requires the FAA to reform the current medical-certification process for pilots conducting operations in certain general aviation aircraft with a maximum takeoff weight up to 6,000 pounds, carrying five passengers or less and flying below 18,000 feet. NBAA has supported industry calls for this reformed certification process.  
 
The Senate-passed bill provides that most pilots holding a valid third class medical – either regular or special-issuance – within 10 years of the final date of enactment of the legislation would not need to take another FAA medical exam. Pilots who develop certain medical conditions – including a small list of specific cardiac, mental health or neurological conditions – will have to obtain a one-time-only FAA special-issuance medical.

Pilots without a valid medical exam in the past the 10 years, or those who have never applied for, nor received a medical certificate, will be required to undergo a one-time third class aviation medical exam. Once this is done, they will be able to fly indefinitely. After meeting any of these requirements, all pilots will be required to visit their personal physician once every four years for a medical exam.

# # #
Founded in 1947 and based in Washington, DC, the National Business Aviation Association (NBAA) is the leading organization for companies that rely on general aviation aircraft to help make their businesses more efficient, productive and successful. The association represents more than 10,000 companies and provides more than 100 products and services to the business aviation community, including the NBAA Business Aviation Convention & Exhibition, the world's largest civil aviation trade show. Learn more about NBAA at www.nbaa.org.

Members of the media may receive NBAA Press Releases immediately via email. To subscribe to the NBAA Press Release email list, submit the online form

Top stuff...  


MTF..P2  

[Peetwo]

United we stand divided we fall - Part II: Enough is enough

The following is a quote from a high profile and respected industry identity.. :

The bottom line is that reform of aviation administration in Australia is a political issue, CASA is never going to reform itself.

Indeed, discussions with Skidmore tell me he really has no idea what is going on under his "management".

Unlike the days of the PAP, when we had the strong support of Allan Hawke, the present Secretary, Mike Mrdak, is a major obstacle to any meaningful change. Indeed, Mrdak has recently "vetoed" changes to the Act, because "politicians might amend changes if they are brought to Parliament". Mrdak is clearly of the view that politicians should only do as permitted by their civil services masters. 

The UKs (EASA) licensing suite is around 980 pages, most of it plain language CAPs.

The FAA equivalent is somewhat shorter, as is NZ, and all three work reasonably seamlessly.

Our current CASR Part 61, comprising regulations, manuals of standards, advisory material, explanations of all the forgoing, and CASA "policy" documents that are "determinations" of some meanings, many quite contrary to law, all in total have now passed 3000 pages, and clearly do not work.

If you needed anymore proof that the above quote is indeed as close to a SOF (statement of fact), that Skidmore is aiding/abetting the Mrdak & Iron Ring campaign of obfuscation of any real reform of CASA, go no further than the following CASA tweet, the first for 2016.. :  

 ‏@CASABriefing 23h 23 hours ago

New exemptions provide flight instructors with additional time to comply with instructor rating prerequisites. More: https://www.casa.gov.au/standard-page/licensing-regulations-latest-news-0 …

So from Skidmore's esteemed Tiger Team we get yet more exemptions & additional pages added to the diabolical, industry destroying Part 61:

Licensing regulations: Latest news

23 December 2016
Instructor rating flight test exemptions

CASA has published new exemptions against certain requirements for flight instructors in relation to ratings and endorsements that were granted incorrectly between 1 September 2014 and 22 December 2015.

The exemptions have been made to permit flight instructors who, inadvertently, didn’t meet all the requirements for the grant of the rating and, in some cases, Grade 3, 2 and 1 training endorsements (aeroplane) to continue to conduct flight training.
There are four exemptions.

• CASA EX 215/15 and CASA EX 218/15 are for flight instructors who obtained a flight instructor rating without having passed the pilot instructor rating knowledge examination (PIRC) prior to taking the instructor rating flight test.
  
• CASA EX 214/15 and CASA EX 219/15 are for flight instructors who obtained a Grade 3 training endorsement (aeroplane) without holding a spinning flight activity endorsement at the time the endorsement was granted.  These exemptions also apply to Grade 2 or 1 training endorsements (aeroplane) which those instructors have subsequently obtained.
  
  

Flight instructors referred to above need to pass the PIRC theory examination and/or obtain a spinning flight activity endorsement before 1 April 2016 to avoid losing the rating and having to complete the instructor rating flight test again.

Important conditions apply to all four exemptions.

CASA EX 214/15 and CASA EX 215/15 allow instructors to continue conducting flight training until 31 March 2016, although conditions apply.

If you want to take advantage of CASA EX 214/15 or CASA EX215/15 you need to email CASA at instructorexemption@casa.gov.au  and include:

• your name and ARN
  
• the name of the organisation or organisations you conduct flying training for
  
• confirmation that you have notified your Chief Flying Instructor or Head of Operations you are using the exemption.
  
  

If required, CASA EX 218/15 and CASA EX219/15 will enable CASA to re-grant your instructor rating and training endorsements without you having to take the instructor rating flight test again (conditions apply).

If you want to take advantage of CASA EX 218/15 and CASA EX219/15 you need to email CASA at  instructorexemption@casa.gov.au  and include:

• your name and ARN
  
• details of when you completed the instructor rating and subsequent endorsement flight tests
  
• details of when you passed the PIRC examination and/or obtained the spinning flight activity endorsement
  
• a request, on the basis of the exemption, for CASA to re-grant you a flight instructor rating and (if appropriate) training endorsements
  
• acknowledgement that your next instructor rating proficiency check will be due based on the flight tests you have already done, as the due date is not affected by these exemptions.
  
  

The following conditions apply if you don’t have the spinning flight activity endorsement:

• you must not permit a pilot under flight instruction to manipulate the aeroplane controls during any of the following manoeuvres:
  • a short field landing or short field take-off
    
  • a maximum obstacle clearance take-off and climb
    
  • a steep turn
    
  • a stall or an approach to a stall
    
• except during normal take-off and landing manoeuvres, you must immediately take control of the aeroplane if at any time the aeroplane drops below 1.3Vs  speed for the configuration at the time, or the angle of attach approaches the stalling angle.
  
  

The exemptions will expire on 31 March 2016, by which time all relevant flight instructor rating holders will be expected to have passed the PIRC theory examination and/or have the spinning flight activity endorsements added to their Part 61 licences to avoid having their rating invalidated.

View the exemptions on the ComLaw website.

UFB?- Not really, instead of death by a thousand cuts it is death by another thousand pages..

If you let them the aviation safety bureaucracy will simply obfuscate until the industry self-destructs. Enough talk, spin & bulldust, now is the time for the Alphabet soups to unite, now is the time for action, tell the pollies enough is enough; or BOHICA - Your choice...

MTF...P2    

[Cap'n Wannabe]

Just to be clear on the PIRC requirement...if you hold a Cert IV Training & Assessment, you don't need the PIRC? That's how I understood it - either pass the PIRC, or hold a Cert IV or teaching degree. Of course, this *is* Part 61..

[Kharon]

If the Alphabet Soup Groups (ASG) don’t get their collective acts together soon and start pushing back, it won't matter much whether you are a PIRC or PRIC.  

What a load of BOLLOCKS until the training syllabus was ‘Mummy-fied’ thousands of pilots were taught the basics of incipient spins and stalls, the folly of removing this very basic skill is being demonstrated world wide now, to the point where a special qualification is mandatory to teach:-

The following conditions apply if you don’t have the spinning flight activity endorsement:

• you must not permit a pilot under flight instruction to manipulate the aeroplane controls during any of the following manoeuvres:
•
o a short field landing or short field take-off
o a maximum obstacle clearance take-off and climb
o a steep turn
o a stall or an approach to a stall
o
• except during normal take-off and landing manoeuvres, you must immediately take control of the aeroplane if at any time the aeroplane drops below 1.3Vs  speed for the configuration at the time, or the angle of attach approaches the stalling angle.

Now I liked my Nanny – but I left her apron strings at the age of four and by 5 y.o. I could get myself to school and back, without being run over, getting lost or falling over my boot laces (which I could manage quite well).  Ye Gods, what are we becoming: special permission, approval and pre breaking wind check list please CASA, lest the shit/fart separator fails.

Toot – FFS - toot.

Edit to add – FCOL the first encounter with a short field, dead stick landing should NOT be a solo event, close to last light on a rainy, windy day.  What are these idiots thinking.


There, I feel better now..

[Peetwo]

A long but required read -

The recently released ALAEA initiated & supported (also AMROBA) UNSW report is IMO one of the most comprehensive & important reports of its nature and should place a huge red flag on the lawns of Parliament House - but will it??

Courtesy the ALAEA:
  

Final Report - The Future of Aircraft Maintenance in Australia: Workforce Capability, Aviation Safety and Industry Development Details Created: Friday, 18 December 2015 13:01 Last Updated: Monday, 21 December 2015 08:39


After 4 years of intensive research and analysis the University of NSW's Business School's Industrial Relations Research Centre has released their final report into the future of aircraft maintenance in Australia.

 The project was initiated by the ALAEA in 2007 in order to properly gauge the value to Australia's economy and the safety benefits to the flying public and airline employees of a domestic based aircraft maintenance industry.

To ensure that the project produced an unbiased report with data that governments could rely on when formulating aviation industry policy a number of cross industry partners joined the project. They included partners from employers, unions and the training sector.
There has arguably been no other intensive study of this nature carried out in Australia. 
The report identifies a number of areas of opportunity for the Australian maintenance and maintenance training sector to grow and excel as global aviation continues its rapid expansion.

It also identifies some severe consequences if the actions aren't taken to address some key problems plaguing the industry at the moment.

The report is lengthy but is a worthwhile read. We encourage you to take the time to learn about the state of our industry and what the future holds.  
     
DOWNLOAD FINAL REPORT HERE

The exec summary:

Executive Summary


In a nutshell

1. By 2025, there will be an estimated 30% global workforce shortfall in aircraft maintenance capacity, with Australia and the Asia Pacific region particularly hard hit:

Australia has a both a strong need and excellent opportunity to help meet this shortfall in the region.

2. This means moving quickly to rebuild both our aircraft maintenance and maintenance training industries by 2020, to permit Australia to handle a high proportion of its own needs across the civilian airline, general aviation and Defence sectors.

3. This is also a great opportunity to capitalise on our strong safety standards and high-end maintenance capability by building a maintenance and training capacity, capable of competing aggressively in the highest-value niches of the global market.


4. We must move to establishing a system of quality control safeguards, adequate to guarantee that maintenance on Australian aircraft, whether done in Australia or elsewhere, is carried out to best international safety standards.

5. Australian maintenance qualifications must be globally integrated through complete alignment with International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) and European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) training and licence standards; teething problems in the introduction of the new licensing and training system must be quickly addressed.

6. Regional and General Aviation are essential national services and so the new small aircraft maintenance licensing system must be quickly finalised, to ensure a nation-wide supply of qualified staff to perform and sign off on repairs and overhaul.

7. Developing workforce capability and career paths to meet the impending maintenance skills shortfall and develop a maintenance training export industry will require:

o The expansion of training both in the skills required to work on existing aircraft and in innovative techniques for work on next generation aircraft
o Keeping as many as possible of the present generation of aircraft maintenance
engineers productively employed, and their skills and knowledge current, until local
market demand revives
o Reforming and rebuilding MRO training to ensure that a new generation of properly
qualified engineers will be available to replace the current one as it retires
o Harmonising training and career paths across sectors (Civilian and Defence; airline
and General Aviation) and between aerospace manufacturing and aviation.

8. To help develop the training capacity required to build an innovation-oriented aircraft maintenance workforce, and to ensure that maintenance training makes a significant contribution to Australia’s education exports, a National Aerospace/Aviation College (NAAC) should be established, with nationally-networked branches in each state and territory. It would draw on the combined resources of the university and TAFE sectors, gain recognition as Part 147 category Maintenance Training Organisation, a Registered Training Organisation and a nationally registered higher education provider, and have support from aerospace and aviation industry employers for the in-depth provision of practical skills training and experience.

9. A national Aircraft Manufacturing/ Maintenance Industry Forum or Working Group needs to be established to advise on planning towards achieving these goals.

For recommendations, see pages xv to xviii.

Very damning but well done those UNSW boffins & great initiative Steve P, KC & Co...

Over to you 'Malcolm in the middle', Wazza, Murky & Co - TICK bloody TOCK...


MTF...P2   

[thorn bird]

Quote:

5. Australian maintenance qualifications must be globally integrated through complete alignment with International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) and European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) training and licence standards; teething problems in the introduction of the new licensing and training system must be quickly addressed.

Sorry gentlemen EASA rules are almost as asinine as Australia's and completely unaffordable, besides the Kiwi's have already stolen the race by adopting sensible rules aligned with the US FAR's.
They are now reaping the rewards, with a cost base way below Australia's because their regulatory burden is so much lighter there is no way We could hope to compete.

Quote:

6. Regional and General Aviation are essential national services and so the new small aircraft maintenance licensing system must be quickly finalised, to ensure a nation-wide supply of qualified staff to perform and sign off on repairs and overhaul.

Bit hard to sign off on repairs and overhaul when there is no machinery to repair and overhaul.
The government doesn't consider GA and regional are essential industries and has given CAsA a free hand to destroy both in much the same manner Europe did.
Without an Erebus event or an FAA downgrade there is little political traction for any sort of meaningful reform that could prevent the industry winding down. Aviation in Australia is just too expensive leading entities who have a need and desire to use its services to seek alternative means of transport such as our roads. The little international work available for Australian aviation companies to compete for are out of reach as countries like New Zealand and PNG can comfortably out bid us.

The University of NSW report I fear is just "Pipe dreams", our maintenance standards are no longer accepted overseas, even our engineers qualifications are questioned, even by the Authority on who's regulations ours are supposed to be based on.
When CAsA forges ahead and introduces its so called Part 121 regulations, maintenance costs will triple and compliance costs reach stratospheric levels.

[Peetwo]

Act now or else -

Very much related to part 2 of the AMROBA latest news letter - see my post HERE & HERE:

2. Basic General Aviation Ideas Needed.


Why is North America (USA/Canada) general aviation flourishing and of such size? There are basically two principles applied and that is to provide pilots and maintenance personnel with the appropriate practical skills. In the last newsletter we identified that ICAO GA standards places organisation responsibilities on the pilot and LAME. North America adopts that principle.

General aviation covers private operations to aerialwork, charter and small airline operations and maintenance, manufacturing and training activities. It ranges from small and informally organised individuals and organisations servicing private and other non-passenger commercial businesses through to structurally organised businesses servicing commercial operators.

GA is a very broad area of employment so what works in one sector in many cases does not work in another sector. For example, small aviation businesses in rural locations need to employ from the local community to retain the employee on completion of training – it is an employee retention issue.

Training is the major issue for many local communities as learning to fly or becoming an aircraft tradesperson usually means travelling, at great costs, to a location where specific training is available with additional costs.

Major Issue - Training. There has to be a concerted re-think on the provision of pilot and maintenance training so that training is brought to the local community rather than centralising training at a limited number of locations, mainly near major cities.

In the USA, a person interested in learning to fly can access a website and find the nearest independent flight instructor. Example Website: Independent Flight Instructors or flying school Website: Flying Schools. What the US system does is provide various pathways to obtain a pilot licence.

The same applies in the maintenance fields, e.g. training schools website: Online website. In the US, community schools and FAA Part 147 approved schools share the training almost evenly with very similar A&P practical and knowledge pass marks. There is a small
percentage that self study, gain experience and pass the practical and knowledge tests. It is the flexibility in the FAA regulatory system that was copied by EASA.

EASA provides a similar flexible approach to the FAA but Australia adopted only one of three ways provided by EASA. It has not worked. See item 4 for more detail on AME training flexibility. A system that sees many aircraft not being flown or low utilisation of aircraft has systemic problems with the overall system.

Aviation depends on renewal. New pilots, new aircraft and new support personnel.

Safety improvement relies on the transfer of knowledge and experience from one generation to the next.

 
From Avbiz today, apparently the TLISC Aviation Workforce Skills Study was released last Friday (presumably in conjunction with the Miniscule & Industry AICC meeting) and is now available for industry comment up till 16 February 2016:

Aviation workforce study reinforces need to get cracking

03 Feb 2016

An Aviation Workforce Skills Study, circulated this week among industry participants, reiterates many of the issues that have been bubbling away in the aviation sector for some time, but with a renewed sense of urgency that talk needs to be replaced with action.

Conducted by the Transport & Logistics Industry Skills Council (TLISC) in October on behalf of the Federal Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development, it draws from a diverse range of data from aviation occupations ranging from licensing  to VET funding. The study sought to identify the industry's workforce and skill needs, as well as action to be taken. The preliminary report was presented to the department's minister, Warren Truss, last Friday.

“The sector is under tremendous pressure to adapt in a very dynamic environment with rapidly growing cargo and passenger traffic, stringent regulations, and fast-paced technology innovation,” said TLISC chief executive Robert Adams.

“As such, the availability of skilled and trained staff is crucial to the ongoing viability of our aviation industry,” he said.

A “significant” issue in the study was concern around the status of aviation safety regulatory reform and its potential impact on key occupations involved in the reforms at the employer and individual level.

The perennial issue of a shortage of maintenance, repair and overhaul (MRO) workers was, like other reports in circulation, of concern to the majority of industry stakeholders and training providers, along with offshoring and/or outsourcing of aircraft maintenance functions by Australian airlines.

The need for an industry-wide approach to aviation workforce planning and development, supported by streamlined policy and regulation was raised. Strong international opportunities for Australian aviation training providers and pilot poaching were also constants in feedback along with cost barriers to entering the industry faced by individuals and businesses and the cost of training.

The implementation of current regulatory reforms into industry operations was a bug-bear, with many industry stakeholders questioning the cost/benefit ratio of the reforms for the industry with the potential for even less budget available in future for staff training.

Respondents pointed to the need for greater centralisation and co-ordination in workforce planning across the aviation industry to better inform regulatory and policy decisions that may affect the sector in the future.

The occupations covered in the research were pilots (both plane and helicopter), air traffic controllers, flying instructors, air transport professionals, aircraft maintenance engineers (avionics, mechanical and structures), flight attendants, aircraft baggage handlers, airline ground crew and aircraft refuellers.

Industry participants have until February 16 to submit comments on the key themes and to provide feedback that either confirms the salient issues have been raised or add others.

 
From TLISC website:

Transport & Logistics Industry Skills Council › Aviation Workforce Skills Study




Key Issues Paper Released

To download your copy of the Key Issues Paper, please click here. The purpose of this paper is to provide stakeholders with a summary of the key themes and issues that have been identified so far by the study and to verify their accuracy.  The contents of this paper are drawn from industry consultations and other research activities completed by TLISC during October – December 2015.

These activities are part of the Aviation Workforce Skills Study (AWSS), work undertaken by TLISC on behalf of the Commonwealth’s Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development. The AWSS is a study into the state of the aviation workforce in Australia which seeks to identify the industry’s workforce and skill needs, as well as the actions that can be taken by industry to meet those needs.

This study responds to the need, recognised by industry and government alike, to support the effective, safe growth of the aviation sector in Australia. The sector is under tremendous pressure to adapt in a very dynamic environment with a rapidly growing cargo and passenger traffic, stringent regulations, and fast-paced technology innovation. As such, the availability of skilled and trained staff is crucial to the ongoing viability of our aviation industry.

How to provide feedback

Stakeholders are invited to submit their comments on the key themes and issues outlined in this paper by close of business on Monday, 15th February 2016.

In considering the key issues and themes identified in this paper, we are keen to have any feedback that either confirms your issue has been covered, or else raises an issue you feel should be addressed in the final report but has not been covered here.

It is acknowledged that the information provided about issues in this paper is deliberately brief, and that they will be discussed in greater depth in the final report.  The purpose of this paper is to validate and confirm that the final report is an accurate account of stakeholder concerns.

Responses can be emailed to research@tlisc.org.au

&.. from the Aviation Workforce Skills Study - Key Issues Paper:

1. AWSS Key Themes and Issues Summary


The Aviation Workforce Skills Study has so far identified a wide range of issues related to Australia’s aviation environment to be considered by policy makers and industry stakeholders. These include:

1.1. There is strong evidence of an identified need for an industry-wide approach to aviation workforce planning and development, supported by streamlined policy and regulation. This includes the collation, aggregation and sharing of all relevant aviation occupational licencing and training data with all state and federal agencies with an interest in aviation workforce skilling outcomes.

1.2. The current costs barriers faced by individuals and businesses are well understood, however there i s a need for the industry to invest more in its current and future workforce through public and private funding mechanisms.

1.3. There are strong international opportunities for Australian aviation training providers, both in terms of overseas operations and involvement in capacity building efforts have been identified through survey responses and industry intelligence and feedback.

1.4. Significant issues were raised during industry consultation regarding the status of aviation safety regulatory reform in Australia and the potential impact of these on key occupations involved in the reforms, at the employer and individual level.

1.5. The implementation of current regulatory reforms into industry operations was continually raised as a concern, with many industry stakeholders questioning the cost/benefit ratio of the reforms for the industry with the potential flow-on for even less budget to be available for staff training in the future.

1.6. Some survey respondents pointed to the need for greater centralisation and coordination in workforce planning across the aviation industry, to better inform regulatory and policy decisions that may affect the industry in the future.

1.7. Access to a wide range of data sources related to aviation occupations, licencing data, and publicly- funded tertiary and VET funding information is critical for policy makers to make informed decisions related to aviation skilling strategies.

MTF..P2

[Peetwo]

"..Let's do the Timewarp again.."

Today from Oz Flying:

TAAAF - Bring back the Reverend Forsyth - 2nd that motion

Hot off the Yaffa Press via Hitch from Oz Flying..

TAAAF calls for Review of CASA Reform Progress

22 Feb 2016

The Australian Aviation Associations Forum (TAAAF) has called for David Forsyth to be reappointed to review the progress of aviation safety regulation reform.

In a statement released today, TAAAF stated that they were optimistic about the new era of co-operation emerging between the Civil Aviation Safety Authority and the aviation community, but that the process of reform needed to be faster.

"At its recent meeting in Canberra, TAAAF expressed optimism that a new and more positive aviation regulatory philosophy is emerging, leading to a regulatory partnership between industry and government," the statement said.

"TAAAF expressed concern at the lack of progress in the effective implementation of the Forsyth Report (the Aviation Safety Regulatory Review) and would support the reappointment of Mr David Forsyth to conduct a review of progress and make further recommendations.

"The Forsyth Review identified significant cultural change was required within CASA and TAAAF continues to encourage and support the CASA Board developing strategic policies in cooperation with the Forum."

TAAAF will formulate a set of aviation policy recommendations it says will be sent to every member of parliament prior to the upcoming 2016 Federal Election.

   

 The day doesn't quite match but this is also from Oz Flying this time last year...

TAAAF Statement puts Minister on Notice

27 Feb 2015

A statement released today has made it clear to Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss that The Australian Aviation Associations Forum (TAAAF) is not pleased with the pace of reform at CASA.

TAAAF has strongly encouraged the Minister for Infrastructure, the new Board of CASA and the new Director of Aviation Safety (DAS) of CASA Mark Skidmore to "urgently embrace reform and pursue a fundamental improvement in aviation in Australia."

The TAAAF statement noted that "future of aviation in Australia is starting to look promising – provided that politicians, the Department of Infrastructure and aviation agency heads act now."

Forum participants called on the Minister to finalise his letter of intent to direct CASA and the CASA Board on a new path of co-operation with the aviation community to "build a more vibrant and innovative industry that is not shackled by out-moded regulation or handicapped by red tape."

TAAAF members made reiterated their enthusiasm for reform and expressed hope that the Federal Government would take a systematic approach to improving the regulator's culture in line with the industry-endorsed recommendations that came out of the ASRR (Forsyth) Report.

The call comes only days after Skidmore announced his intent to introduce just culture to CASA

 
Well the former miniscule did that but that was like water off the duck's back for Murky & his three stooges to completely obfuscate & whitewash - "nothing to see here, move along!" - TFB!!??
MTF...P2

[Kharon]

P2 – “Well the former miniscule did that but that was like water off the duck's back for Murky & his three stooges to completely obfuscate & whitewash”

Back in the good old days, in theory, before a man (or woman) was hanged the case against had to be proven beyond reasonable doubt; to achieve this evidence was required which was tested and the jury then had to decide whether the prisoner was guilty or not.  As time progressed the method and process became more complex but the principal remains the same. 

Now we have CASA essentially on trial.  Rev. Forsyth, prosecutor, has won the day and proven that the prisoner at the bar is indeed guilty.  A jury of peers has confirmed this and a minister of the crown has agreed with that verdict, which rules out an appeal.  These days, the bad ‘uns ain’t hanged.  Rehabilitation is the way, so our miscreants must agree to reform and rehabilitation programs.

This of course relies on the leopard wanting to change it’s spots.  There is no damn point to all of this unless an equal burden of proof that the ‘reform’ has actually occurred is provided.  In short, CASA cannot amble about the country side telling everyone who’ll listen they are reformed and improving; they must provide empirical evidence that the cure has taken effect.  

Since Forsyth I can find no evidence to support real change; there simply isn’t any.  Lots of smoke, plenty of mirrors lots of bling and window dressing; but SFA of an empirical nature.  There is however a mounting pile of ‘evidence’ that they have simply become even more cunning and improved their camouflage.  Some of the tales from folk who have, of necessity, been forced to deal with CASA report that behind the smiling façade, the intent and malice still lurk, as angry and aggressive as ever.

Before I can believe there is a change I’d need to see clear evidence of that change.  Before anyone even thinks of ‘assisting’ this process a clearly defined raft of real changes must be clearly demonstrated.

Why? Well, IMO CASA and only CASA created the current mess; their ‘experts’, their management and their ‘executive' are solely responsible for the industry mistrust, disdain and dislike.  If ‘we’ help to build a better system the same incumbent incompetents will remain ensconced.  The same attitude of arrogant superiority will pervade on the top floor and any credit for helping will be claimed as their own.  By assisting, we perpetrate the fraud and are guilty by association with future relapses into bad faith.

Let’s see some prosecution of managers and FOI’s, those who have, thus far, gotten away with some despicable acts.  Let’s see some firing and hiring.  Show us a cooperative act that is not window dressing.  There is a long, long list of bastardry, incompetence and vicious attack. Show the industry that the miscreants have been punished not cosseted, protected and promoted.

Otherwise, reform is, and remains a fairy tale, a fraud.  Assisting to perpetuate this fraud will not improve industry’s lot one iota.  Not until repentance, restitution and punishment has been delivered; then we can consider rehabilitation.  Anything less is bollocks.

It wearies me; Forsyth and Board have much to do and the clock is ticking while those that created the mess get comfy and feel secure.  Best crack on then, before the slime oozes through the gaps and contamination spreads.  Exemptions anyone?

Toot FCOL bloody toot.

[Peetwo]

Courtesy ProAviation:

AVIATION ASSOCIATIONS FORUM MEETING

Leave a reply

TAAAF Communiqué

The Australian Aviation Associations Forum has congratulated the new Minister for
Infrastructure and Transport, the Hon. Darren Chester MP, on his appointment to this
critical position for Australia’s economy, job creation and aviation industry.

At its recent meeting in Canberra, TAAAF expressed optimism that a new and more
positive aviation regulatory philosophy is emerging, leading to a regulatory partnership
between industry and government.

TAAAF expressed concern at the lack of progress in the effective implementation of the
Forsyth Report (the Aviation Safety Regulatory Review) and would support the
reappointment of Mr David Forsyth to conduct a review of progress and make further
recommendations.

The Forsyth Review identified significant cultural change was required within CASA
and TAAAF continues to encourage and support the CASA Board developing strategic
policies in cooperation with the Forum.

The combined peak aviation bodies called on the CASA Board to immediately impose a
moratorium on proposed changes to pilots’ flight and duty times under CAO 48.1 to
permit a more collaborative approach.

TAAAF fully supports the Director of Aviation Safety’s Directive 01/2015 on the
development and application of risk-based and cost-effective aviation safety regulation
and asked that it be applied to all CASA regulations including Parts 61/141/142 and
CAO 48.1.

The Forum will be presenting comprehensive aviation policy recommendations to all
Members of Parliament prior to the 2016 Federal election.

[Peetwo]

The Feds come out swinging on CAO48.1 - Another day, another long drawn out saga on the ASRR/CASA Regulatory Reform Program. First some background off the CASA meets the Press post #113:

AFAP - Strange dichotomy on CAO48.1??  

CASA ‘caved in’ on new pilot flight rules  

Submission on CAO 48.1 Appendix 4B.

...Our submission is based on feedback from members working in the emergency medical services field and the views of the Federation’s Technical Committee, made up of working airline and commercial pilots under the direction of the AFAP’s Technical Director.

As a professional association, the members and staff of the Federation are active in promoting flight safety and improving Australian and global aviation standards. The Federation’s diverse pilot membership base places it in a strong position to comment on the proposed changes to Flight Time Limitations.

Owing to the short timeline, our submission should not be regarded as comprehensive. We would welcome the opportunity to further explain and supplement our submission via discussion with all interested parties...

..I am writing to express our concern about the proposed Medical Transport & Emergency Service Operations Appendix to CAO 48.1, 2013.

The Federation was not involved in the original working group to develop the proposal & it was only through our members that we were made aware of the draft. Following representation to CASA we were invited to attend the most recent working group. As we made clear at the meeting, we have no concern about operators conducting emergency retrieval services, search & rescue, rig & range safety or the myriad other low rate operations, where Crew Members are on standby for extended periods, under the proposed Appendix 4b. These crew members would be rarely if ever subject to cumulative fatigue however, we are very concerned about the crew members who are involved primarily in patient transfer services.

The majority of these patients are not in need of urgent medical attention, they are being transported because the services they require are not available at their local hospital.

These patients are frequently accompanied by family members & it is not appropriate to be unnecessarily exposing these passengers to the elevated fatigue risk associated with Appendix 4b.

The crew members with these operators are averaging 500 to 700 flight hours a year & would typically be rostered between 35 to 45 duty hours a week (5 x 8 hour duty periods). This is on a par with any regional airline operating under Appendix 3 or 4. They are doing this generally single pilot, in complex aircraft, flying multiple sectors in all weather conditions. The majority of these flights are into regional airports with limited facilities primarily outside the protection of controlled airspace.

The proposed Appendix is not suitable for this type of operation; it allows a crew member to be rostered for up to 12 days duty with the only restriction being a maximum of 40 hours flight time or 60 hours duty in 7 days. The standby provisions allow an aeromedical pilot who may have already done 4 or 5 days duty to spend up to 24hours on standby then be called in for an 11 hour duty. Repetitive, long days like these without adequate rest can lead to high cumulative fatigue levels.

In accordance with our original submission we propose that medical transport services(MTS) be conducted under Appendix 3 or 4 , If these crewmembers are then tasked with an Aeromedical evacuation this can be conducted under Appendix 4b if required.

The definitions of these terms are included in our original submission. “Submission on Civil Aviation Order 48.1 Appendix 4b”, dated 9th June 2015. A copy of which is attached.

Yours sincerely,

Captain David Booth

President

   

Okay & today in the Oz by Binger..

Fatigue rules put pilots at risk, union warn

• Mitchell Bingemann
  
• The Australian
  
• March 4, 2016 12:00AM
  

The Australian Federation of Air Pilots says it has been left out of the crucial discussions.

The nation’s largest pilot union has warned that new fatigue management rules for medical transport operations lean too far towards the financial interests of commercial air operators and will put pilots’ health at risk.

The Australian Federation of Air Pilots president David Booth has written to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority to complain that it has been left out of the crucial discussions, which propose to move the fatigue management for medical transport operations from the aerial work category to a classification incorporating passenger transport standards.
In his letter, Captain Booth said the new fatigue management rules — which will be applied to Medical Transport Services — mean pilots will have to work longer flight duty periods when conducting routine patient transfer services.

“In other words, their employers will maximise their productivity under the guise of ‘emergency’ provisions in the new regulations. We believe this is unconscionable and unsafe,” he said.

A spokesman for CASA said it was finalising its response to the letter from the AFAP that was dated February 22.

“CASA is looking carefully at the comments made by the union and will consider the issues which have been raised,” he said.

CASA said the new rules would modernise the management of fatigue in aviation. They were developed to address known fatigue hazards, it said.

The proposed changes cover a broad spectrum of both aircraft and helicopter operations from low rate types such as range and rig safety through medical retrieval services up to high rate types such as patient transfer services.

But the AFAP says the same rules should not apply to pilots who have long standby periods between emergency flights, and pilots who fly regular patient transfer flights which are much more like typical passenger flights in frequency, and thus require greater fatigue protections.

“These operations are completely different in their scope and cannot all be safely conducted under the (new rules),” Captain Booth said.

About time the Alphabets realised that OST (AVM retired) is just another former RAAF, self interested,  bench warming, RAEs glove puppet, with NFI; & who is only interested in topping up his already bloated superfund by providing top cover for the Murky Mandarin & the Iron ring.

Harden up Alphabets, play hardball & follow the Scott McMillan (Alliance Airlines MD) lead, it is probably the only thing 'Malcolm in the muddle' & Minister Chester may actually understand -


MTF..P2