Alphabet if’s and but's.

The end is nigh for Oz GA industry?  Confused

Via the Oz today:

Quote:Concerns voiced over civil aviation safety charter overhaul

The Australian
Concerns voiced over civil aviation safety charter overhaul.

[Image: ad09e894bb1c7ad038fd0ea15033dabf]
Dick Smith with his Cessna Citation plane at Ballina Airport.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Also via the Oz:

Quote:Flexible recreational aviation approach helps lift pilot numbers


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Image: DxJ53xpUUAYKgxp.jpg]


Hmm...??




MTF...P2  Tongue
Reply

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

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

Herr Linke

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

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

Via aipa.org.au :

Quote:TIME TO REVIEW AUSTRALIA’S AVIATION SAFETY REGIME

29/03/2019 | Author: Mark Sedgwick

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

[Image: D3bfYcOUcAA1Zo2.jpg]

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

Quote:To the Senators

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regards


John Hancox

LAFF. Brisbane

[Image: D3Rc9oCUcAAa7BA.jpg]


MTF...P2  Cool
Reply

AIPA prez & comments in the Oz -  Confused  

Via the Oz:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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





arlys

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



Ben

An industry ripe for disruption



Peter

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



Niels

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



John

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



Gregg

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



Steve M

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




Jim

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

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



Grant

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



Peter

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



arlys

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



Damien

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


DJD



Botswana O'Hooligan

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



Peter

I totally agree.



Richard

Or, join the CFMEU...




JELG

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

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

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

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



Chris

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

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



David

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



Josh

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



Botswana O'Hooligan

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



Kevin

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



Garry

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



Michael

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



Juliette

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


MTF...P2  Cool
Reply

AusALPA bemused by Harfwit E over D proposal -  Confused

By LMH, via the Yaffa:

Quote:
  • [Image: http%3A%2F%2Fyaffa-cdn.s3.amazonaws.com%...ink_ay.jpg]



Airline Pilots set to object to E over D Proposal
1 May 2019
Comments 0 Comments
    

The representative body of regular public transport pilots is likely to object to Airservices Australia's proposal to introduce Class E airspace over Class D towered airports.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Quote:CONCLUDING REMARKS

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

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

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

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

AusALPA, therefore, strongly opposes this proposal.

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


MTF...P2  Cool
Reply

(05-02-2019, 10:41 AM)Peetwo Wrote:  AusALPA bemused by Harfwit E over D proposal -  Confused

By LMH, via the Yaffa:

Quote:
  • [Image: http%3A%2F%2Fyaffa-cdn.s3.amazonaws.com%...ink_ay.jpg]



Airline Pilots set to object to E over D Proposal
1 May 2019
Comments 0 Comments
    

The representative body of regular public transport pilots is likely to object to Airservices Australia's proposal to introduce Class E airspace over Class D towered airports.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Quote:CONCLUDING REMARKS

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

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

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

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

AusALPA, therefore, strongly opposes this proposal.

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

Hmm...passing strange??

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

Quote:[Image: VXoUR7Mg_bigger.jpg]

Noodle
@fishonoodle

Replying to @PAIN_NET1 @aipa_pilots and 2 others

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

11:45 AM - 2 May 2019
OAR report quotes:
Quote:...The review found that there is no risk-based requirement to change the airspace classification at Launceston. The OAR has determined that the current airspace classification is fit for purpose2 and recommends no change to the classification. The airspace provides a safe and equitable level of access for users within the airspace. This is based upon the analysis of safety and incident data, consultation with stakeholders and the breakdown of annual aircraft and passenger movement statistics within the review area...

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

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




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

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

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



MTF...P2  Cool
Reply

TAAAF policy 2019??

Via the LMH:

Quote:[Image: http%3A%2F%2Fyaffa-cdn.s3.amazonaws.com%...af_web.jpg]

TAAAF Policy calls for CASA Reform
10 May 2019
Comments 0 Comments
    

The Australian Aviation Associations Forum (TAAAF) has called for substantial reform of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) through a major review of the Civil Aviation Act 1988.

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

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

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

TAAAF wants to see the lapsed Civil Aviation Amendment Bill re-introduced to parliament with amendments that bring about legislative changes to CASA. Those changes include:
  • Amendments that address safety issues and High Court challenges to the primacy of the Civil Aviation Act
  • addition of cost and sector risk approaches
  • CASA board to have full powers over strategy, operation and administration
  • CASA board to be comprised of people with relevant and significant aviation experience
  • Director of Aviation Safety (DAS) to be ex-officio member of the board
  • revision of CEO/DAS position to increase accountability to the board
  • establishing formal consultation with peak aviation bodies.

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

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

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

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


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

 Err... no comment -  Rolleyes  


MTF...P2  Tongue
Reply

Credibility; or

Believe it if you like.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Toot - MTF – toot.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)