Moves to ban flights around Melbourne CBD
#1

Just found this on farcebook..WTF is this guy on?  Apparently, there'll be no financial impact if it goes ahead.  What about the operators who will no longer be able to offer a quick trip around the CBD?

Angry  Angry

Quote:[Image: http%3A%2F%2Fyaffa-cdn.s3.amazonaws.com%...ne_CBD.jpg]Melbourne CBD. Greens MP Adam Bandt wants all aircraft to fly no lower than 6500 ft within 5 km. (Sonya Boadle)

Greens move to ban Melbourne City Flights
29 November 2016

Greens MP for Melbourne, Adam Bandt, has proposed legislation that will effectively ban flights over and around Melbourne City (MCTY).

In reponse to residents' concerns over aircraft noise, Bandt says he will introduce legislation that will ban all but emergency aircraft from flying within 5 km of MCTY at an altitude of less than 6500 feet.

"In recent years, aircraft noise has increased significantly over homes in suburbs including East Melbourne, Richmond, Fitzroy, Kensington and Docklands – putting Melbourne's liveability under strain," he says on his website.

"I have worked with local residents, Greens Senator Janet Rice and Greens Councillors Rohan Leppert and Cathy Oke to push for action.

"We have pursued every available opportunity to fix this problem – but it is clear that to protect Melbourne’s liveability we need to change the law on aircraft noise."

The exposure draft of the legislation – called the Air Services Amendment Act 2016 – reveals that the amendment calls for:
  • Airservices Australia to conduct greater consultation with the community on how they exercise their powers
  • Airservices board to be expanded by two and include an expert on environmental management
  • An Aircraft Noise Ombudsman to be established
  • Airservices to be forced to review any flight path if requested to do so by any person effected by the flight path
  • The Minister to appoint a community aviation advocate where Airservices proposes any changes that are likely to have effect on humans or the natural environment.
"This bill will set clear requirements for consultation and reporting on the part of Airservices Australia," Bandt says.

"The bill will require AA to minimise impact of aircraft operations on the human and natural environment, community amenity and residential areas. The bill will also ensure that communities affected by aircraft noise are adequately consulted and have stronger representation in these consultations."

General aviation flights made around MCTY include city orbits, helicopters operating from the Yarra heliports, training flights into and out of Essendon, media helicopters, airwork and emergency services including air ambulance, HEMS and police.

According the explanatory memoradum accompanying the exposure draft, the amendment has no financial impact.

The exposure draft and explanatory memorandum are available from the Parliament of Australia website.

Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/lates...6upV318.99
P2 edit - Good catch Wannabe, I did see that on Oz Flying earlier and thought typical Greens overreaction. I think the Green utopia would ban all GA aircraft out of existence and just keep the most fuel efficient and quiet airline jets to get them to and from Can'tberra - UDB! Dodgy   
Reply
#2

From the explanatory notes:
Quote:...This bill will set clear requirements for consultation and reporting on the part of Airservices Australia. The bill will require AA to minimise impact of aircraft operations on the human and natural environment, community amenity and residential areas. The bill will also ensure that communities affected by aircraft noise are adequately consulted and have stronger representation in these consultations. It will do this by establishing an independent Aircraft Noise Ombudsman and an independent Community Aviation Advocate.

 
Because under the Act Airservices Australia currently is not responsible for carrying out activities to protect community amenity and residential areas from the effects of aircraft noise, it does not control airspace at low altitudes over many residential areas. As such, in some residential areas, AA is unable to control the impact of low-flying small aircraft. In inner Melbourne, there are now specific and acute circumstances of high intensity flights of small aircraft in uncontrolled airspace. The bill will require Airservices Australia to prepare a plan for management of flight paths and air space in central Melbourne, including by prohibiting flights of helicopters and fixed wing aircraft below 2,000m above sea level within 5km of central Melbourne, with clear exemptions in the public interest for emergency services, hospitals, defence, and other like aircraft.


FINANCIAL IMPACT 
The bill will have no financial impact. - Dodgy
CW - What about the operators who will no longer be able to offer a quick trip around the CBD?
Not to mention the business helicopters and their CBD helipads, the VFR transit lanes for YMEN & YMMB training aircraft etc..etc. And WTD is the definition of 'central Melbourne'?
Refer Schedule 1—Amendments Could you imagine if they actually got that Bill up? It would spell the death knell of not only GA & Flying training in the Melbourne basin but throughout the country with all secondary airports going the way of the Dodo... Confused  And we actually pay these idiots to legislate for the greater good of the country - God help us & God help us save our industry... Undecided


MTF...P2 Dodgy
Reply
#3

Bandt is a total Muppet. And he comes from a long line of Greens muppets that seem to get worse all the time. Then again, muppets like DDDD, Truss, Albo et al aren't much better. These tossers should shut their cakeholes and not utter a sound as the mystique of aviation truly is confusing them.

Adam, please stick to fighting for the rights of queers, saving frog species, identifying new types of plankton that whales feed on, or concentrate on the ever important job of reducing the Green Party's carbon footprint by reducing the office air-conditioning running time and not allowing staff to break wind outdoors!!!! FFS.
Reply
#4

Have the Martians actually landed?

Back in the day – when comics and movies carried tales of the Martians landing on earth and taking over the joint, those who believed that there was, in fact, life on Mars were ridiculed. The shout “Mum; there’s all these little green men in the back yard” was as likely to get you a thick ear as not. The believers were vilified, ridiculed and, scientifically proven wrong. Well, seems the ‘believers’ were right after all . Yup; sad, but true, colonies of alien beings do now infest the Earth. The only thing the ‘believers’ got wrong was the warlike invasion of planet Earth. It has been a stealth attack, isolated small pockets of little green men, scattered about the place, unobtrusive, innocuous, bland as you like; slowly but steadily increasing in numbers. With increased numbers, they avoided all out war by infiltrating government and taking over that way; saved a fortune.

Greens MP Adam Bandt wants all aircraft to fly no lower than 6500 ft within 5 km. (Sonya Boadle).

The quote above shows quite clearly how effective this take over by alien beings has been; but it also shows us a way to beat the enemy and prevent further power being garnered. The flaws in the alien thinking will be the key to Earthling victory. A battle plan has been sent to the Muggle Prime Minister detailing our cunning plan. First, we accede to the demand to ban aircraft from flying over our cities; this clears the way for our secret weapon – the drone.

Once the aircraft are out of harms way (in the hanger) the airspace can be saturated with unlicensed small drones fitted with ‘chem-trail’ canisters and cameras. Disguised as pizza or sausage sandwich delivery, the drones will have free access to the Martian dwellings. A new batch of ‘chem-trails’ mixture can be laced with a permeating dye which will turn the Martian invaders back to there natural colour – Green. Once we can identify the little buggers, they can be quietly rounded up and sent off to one of our secure camps, somewhere in New Guinea to be cared for by the cannibal tribes, who do not get enough green stuff in their diet.

Win Win I’d say – so, everyone, pound on your local members door and provide a submission supporting the closure of the skies over our major cities. Do it now, save the planet from the little green men.

“Ridiculous twiddle” gruffs P7 from the depths of his seat in my workshop. I agree, but no more foolish, ridiculous or fatuous than the call from Brandt. Don’t blame me, blame those who vote for fools, charlatans and alien mindsets.

[Image: latest?cb=20131019191650]


Toot toot.
Reply
#5

Love your work "K" - Big Grin

Slightly less subtle (& colourful), here is Ben Morgan and AOPA Australia's response to the Adam Bandt (Greens) private members bill:    
Quote:Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association Australia[url=https://www.facebook.com/AOPAaustralia/?fref=nf][/url]

AOPA Australia opposes the Adam Bandt MP Members Bill that serves to remove the rights of Australian aircraft owners and pilots.

Thursday, 1st December 2016
The Hon Adam Bandt MP
Member for Melbourne, Australian Greens
House of Representatives
PO BOX 6022
Canberra ACT 2600, Australia

The Hon Darren Chester MP
Minister for Infrastructure and Transport
House of Representatives
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600, Australia.

Mr Bandt,
I am writing to you on behalf of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) of Australia in response to your Members Bill introduced to Parliament on Monday 28th November 2016, seeking to remove the rights of Australian general aviation pilots and aircraft owners by effectively banning flights over Melbourne City (MCTY).

The AOPA Australia firmly opposes your proposed legislation and is seriously concerned that neither yourself or your staff have sought to consult with the Australian general aviation industry, so as to seek cooperative solutions that does not include forcibly removing the rights of ordinary Australian’s to participate in flying in and around Melbourne, Victoria.

With the above in mind, the AOPA Australia would like to convene a meeting as soon as practical so that we may develop a full and complete understanding of the issues and concerns raised by your constituents. If your office could please confirm a time, it would be greatly appreciated.

Yours Sincerely,

BENJAMIN MORGAN
Executive Director - Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA)
Hangar 600, Prentice Street, Bankstown Airport NSW 2200 Australia.
PO BOX 26, Georges Hall NSW 2198 Australia.
Mobile: 0415 577 724
Telephone: (02) 9791 9099
Email: ben.morgan@aopa.com.au

Just so you know what your up against BM, this is Adam Green Andt's speech on the 2nd reading of the Bill in Parliament:
Quote:Mr BANDT (Melbourne) (10:30): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Today I am introducing the Air Services Amendment Bill 2016 because communities around the country that are affected by aircraft noise are not being represented and are not being protected. The rules that govern flight paths and community consultation are written for businesses and operators, not for the communities that live with aircraft noise every day.

This bill comes on the back of several years of my constituents working within the current law to seek a solution to issues of aircraft noise in Melbourne. In this time, I have spoken in this place about the experience of my constituents, and tabled a petition in parliament signed by hundreds of residents. I and my office have joined residents in meetings with representatives of various federal agencies, airports and aircraft operators. My colleague, the Greens Senator for Victoria Janet Rice, has further raised the issue in Senate estimates and other fora. And I know that Senator Rice and others have been doing similar work with communities affected by aircraft noise around the country.

What is clear, after this protracted process that has taken place over many years, is that the law needs to change. Legislation is required to change and clarify the responsibilities of federal agencies so that when it comes to aircraft noise, communities have a voice.

In introducing this bill I would like to inform the House about the problems faced by some of my constituents in Melbourne. Some aspects of the air noise issue my constituents face are specific to Melbourne and reflective of the growing pressures on the liveability of our city. But beyond the specific circumstances, the experiences of my constituents are deeply illustrative of the problems faced by communities around the country, and will find parallels in the experiences of the constituents of many of my fellow parliamentarians.

I was first in contact with residents of the suburb of East Melbourne in my electorate regarding aircraft noise in 2013. At that time, residents told me that they had noticed a significant increase in small aircraft, such as helicopters and fixed wing aircraft, flying at low altitude over the suburb. The observations of residents were borne out by official flight path data, which showed that small aircraft commonly circle in the airspace above these suburbs. In one weekend over 200 flights took place over the suburb, and I understand that the number of small aircraft flights over residential areas has been increasing over time—many, maybe looking at the MCG or the city, not essential flights by any means and, certainly, not flights designed to avoid disruption to residents.

For those who do not know the area of Melbourne and East Melbourne, it adjoins the CBD and it adjoins the MCG, and increasingly over many years operators have decided to fly fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters at low levels over these suburbs. Subsequently, it appears that the flight paths of larger aircraft may also have been altered, resulting in an increase in air noise from these flights over the suburb. I have been contacted by residents in other neighbourhoods, including Fitzroy, Richmond and Kensington, who have also noticed an increase in air traffic. Meanwhile, residents in Docklands experience high-frequency, extremely loud flights near to residential buildings—often from helicopter traffic.

It became clear as we tried to get to the bottom of this and how to deal with it that the buck stopped with nobody. In seeking a review of the situation from federal agencies, my constituents were sent from door to door, and told repeatedly that no response was possible. Airservices Australia is the government organisation established to provide services to the aviation industry, and residents are encouraged to contact it to raise concerns. But nowhere in the legislation governing Airservices Australia is there a requirement that it considers or minimises the impact of aircraft noise on the human and natural environment, community amenity and residential areas.

Repeatedly, residents in my electorate were told that the airspace above their homes was 'uncontrolled'. That is to say that neither air traffic control nor federal regulations applied to this airspace. Airservices Australia and CASA do have responsibility for planning and controlling flight paths, but are only empowered to do so with a view towards safety, efficiency for the industry or broader environmental issues. The legislation is silent when it comes to the responsibility to minimise the impact of flights on the human and natural environment, community amenity and residential areas. Because federal agencies are not required to protect community amenity or residential areas, airspace over residential areas is, if considered safe to fly in, not monitored or controlled. This means that small aircraft can fly almost at will at relatively low levels over suburbs, causing great distress and annoyance to residents.

In uncontrolled airspace like this, the only option available to communities is to seek voluntary agreements from aircraft operators. But this relies on goodwill. My constituents have written to hundreds of aircraft operators but have received very few responses. Supported by the advocacy of residents, the City of Melbourne—the council—has worked to create a so-called Fly Neighbourly Agreement, to raise the concerns of residents with aircraft operators and seek an agreement to establish voluntary guidelines. This process is ongoing, and I acknowledge the important work of resident groups and the City of Melbourne, and of our Greens councillors Rohan Leppert and Cathy Oke in pushing this process forward.

Nonetheless, when the law makes no federal agency responsible for protecting the community, the power is very much with the operators and the businesses rather than with the residents when seeking voluntary agreements. When I and my constituents repeatedly requested simple noise monitoring of aircraft over East Melbourne, just to establish a clear picture of the scale of the problem, we were told that this would be impossible because the airspace is not controlled. How is it that we can have high-intensity air traffic occurring over homes and impacting residents, but the federal agencies that exist to monitor and control air noise are not even able to record noise levels, let alone take any action to address them?

Meanwhile, consultation mechanisms have been flawed. Too often residents are simply unaware of changes to flight paths above their homes until they find out because of the significant increase in noise they hear daily once the changes have already happened. How can there be genuine consultation on aircraft noise when residents are not even informed until it is too late?

It is a key principle that in our cities and regions, residents should have a meaningful say in the decisions that have an impact on their community. But when it comes to flight paths, this is currently not the case. I fear that if this continues, we are putting at risk the liveability of our cities that we value so highly. This bill is addressing a problem that is emblematic to all of us who want more people to live in the inner city. We have to manage the pressures that come along with that. It is time for a change, to truly give communities a voice and independent support. For this reason I am pleased to introduce this bill.

The bill will do a number of things. First, it will enshrine in law new requirements for consultation with communities and give residents stronger independent representation when consulted. Under the bill, Airservices Australia must inform residents affected by changes to flight paths and, crucially, involve them in the process of environmental assessments with the amenity of residents considered. When a flight path change is proposed, Airservices Australia will be required to inform the minister responsible for the EPBC Act, who in turn is to appoint a Community Aviation Advocate to represent the affected parts of the community. The Community Aviation Advocate is to be completely independent of Airservices Australia.

Second, it will establish in legislation an Aircraft Noise Ombudsman, independent of Airservices Australia. This will offer important oversight and make recommendations to relevant agencies and ministers.

Third, it will amend the role of Airservices Australia in legislation to include a requirement to minimise the impact of aircraft operations on the human and natural environment, community amenity and residential areas. This broadens the responsibility of Airservices Australia in monitoring and controlling airspace and I believe will place a requirement on Airservices Australia to consider airspace over residential areas that it currently does not.
Fourth, the bill will require that the Airservices Australia board include an expert in environmental management and a representative of a community group affected by aircraft noise.

Fifth, in response to the specific and acute circumstances of high-intensity flights of small aircraft in uncontrolled airspace over Melbourne, the bill will prohibit flights of helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft below 2,000 metres above sea level within five kilometres of central Melbourne, with clear exemptions in the public interest of emergency services, defence and other like aircraft.

This bill includes several aspects of a previous private member's bill, introduced in 2011 by the then member for Pearce, the Hon. Judi Moylan MP. I would like to acknowledge the former member for her work on this issue. The 2011 bill was supported, with amendments, by the coalition parties at that time, and I voted in favour of it. However, ultimately the bill was narrowly defeated in the House by one vote. Since that time the ongoing gaps in community representation in controlling the impacts of air traffic have remained.

This bill would give Melbourne similar rules to that of Paris when it comes to small aircraft flying over the city and over residential areas, and, of course, it will not affect any flights taken in connection with hospitals, emergency services, defence or other aircraft.
It is time for action on behalf of communities affected by aircraft noise. As such I commend this bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
 

MTF...P2 Cool
Reply
#6

Over a number of years, membership to AOPA has declined, and my understanding is that many former members felt it wasn't worth renewing their membership because of a lack of representation by AOPA.
With Ben Morgan at the helm, to my mind, it appears that change is in the wind, and I've joined for the first time.
Ben has told me one of his goals is to get a membership of at least 10,000, and become an effective lobby group for GA.  I truly hope that this eventuates.
Reply
#7

The Wagner family and their Wellcamp project have provided timely
proof of the value to communities an airport can bring, thousands of jobs
and economic activity that contributes not just to the local area but the whole country.

A cynic would say let these Loony tune greenies shut down aviation in Melbourne.

Perhaps then when Victoria's economy tanks, and thousands added to the dole queue
the public will understand that there is value in having an aviation Industry.
Reply
#8

CW – “[With] Ben Morgan at the helm, to my mind, it appears that change is in the wind, etc”.

Wind, and the breaking thereof, is a ‘useful’ analogy. Well done CW, good, pawky and subtle. Morgan is the classic case of balls in a vice without a handle, a handy saw and the barn on fire. No amount of piss and wind will quench the flames; so, options are, shall we say – limited.

The RAAA is a bloody good outfit – top draw – cash and no bullshit.  Excellence, experience, fire power, support, credibility, knowledge, first class crew and – a political ear or two to whisper into, where they, maybe, will be heard: between the music and the dancing girls.

AOPA (Oz) has failed, thus far, to elicit the support of their USA based brethren; no surprise, but – it would have been a ‘handy’ thing to take to the table. As it stands now; AOPA has failed to elicit the unstinting support of the AOPA muscle, the industry, the CASA board or the minister; or even the advisor to the minister.  

It all reminds me of King Arthur’s quest for the holy grail; the bit where they bowl up to a French castle and demand the Holy Grail. It is worth considering the whole thing.

Reply
#9

Courtesy Avery Oldman off the Yaffa - www..err..w Confused

Quote:Avery Oldman • 2 hours ago

Exercising my right to free speech, dare
I say that now Uni's have knocked off for the year, (ref the
protests at Parliment house at YSCB,) we will see more of these
left hand, left wing, lesbian, lgbt, whale watching wankers on
welfare, looking for something to do until next March, instead
of finding something really useful to do, like getting a JOB.
Realising that the few jobs left are ones that get your hands
dirty, (oh dear, couldn't do that,) or need some brains, ie IT
jobs, most of which are now o/seas , I guess there is not much
hope. Other than that I don't have any firm opinions
MTF..P2 Rolleyes
Reply
#10

(12-01-2016, 10:35 PM)Peetwo Wrote:  Courtesy Avery Oldman off the Yaffa - www..err..w Confused

Quote:Avery Oldman • 2 hours ago

Exercising my right to free speech, dare
I say that now Uni's have knocked off for the year, (ref the
protests at Parliment house at YSCB,) we will see more of these
left hand, left wing, lesbian, lgbt, whale watching wankers on
welfare, looking for something to do until next March, instead
of finding something really useful to do, like getting a JOB.
Realising that the few jobs left are ones that get your hands
dirty, (oh dear, couldn't do that,) or need some brains, ie IT
jobs, most of which are now o/seas , I guess there is not much
hope. Other than that I don't have any firm opinions
For my pick for QOTW I simply couldn't go past Hitch in his weekly wrap (LMH) on Adam Andt's YMML no fly zone (in particular the part in bold Green Big Grin )... Wink :
Quote:..And now the inner suburbs of Melbourne have jumped on the GA-bashing Bandtwagon with Greens MP Adam Bandt wanting flights within 5 km of MCTY restricted to above 6500 feet. No, this is genuine, it's in the draft legislation. That  means a ban on joy flights, city orbits and pretty much anything Mr Bandt thinks is not in the best interests of his constituents. Of course, this is all about noise, in particular the bone-shattering roar of 180-hp engines at 1000-1500 ft drowning out the soothing whale-sound hum of traffic up Punt Road. But that's not all: if you read the draft legislation, Mr Bandt also wants Airservices to review any flight path at the demand of any and every member of the public who is affected by it.That's effectively giving residents the power to direct Airservices resources at a whim and canceling out any benefits of track-shortening and Performance-based Navigation (PBN). In reality, this legislation is as big a mutt as it gets, and if it scrapes through the House of Reps, is likely to get X'd in the Senate anyway.

Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/the-l...r4zGxVu.99


MTF...P2 Tongue
Reply
#11

Adam Andt is not only an idiot but he is a killjoy and potential destroyer of GA. While he is busy pushing for a ridiculous ban that would severely damage peoples lifestyles and the economy, will he be wanting to ban the Mardi Gras and public glory holes? I bet not.
Adam pull your head out of the sand mate. You and your idiot Green Party do nothing of benefit to the general community, it's about time you smartened up your focus on real issues. Muppets.
Reply
#12

On aircraft noise & secondary airports - the bell is tolling.. Confused

From the Airports thread Capt Wannabe highlighted, with an article link, the remarkable difference in attitude to support of secondary GA airports in the USA compared to here:
(12-14-2016, 02:32 PM)Cap Wrote:  A very interesting article from the LA Times....can't ever see that happening here.

Quote:The Federal Aviation Administration on Tuesday ordered Santa Monica to halt the evictions of two aviation companies at its municipal airport until the agency can finish an investigation into the city’s effort to shut down the facility.

FAA officials issued an interim cease-and-desist order to stop the ouster of Atlantic Aviation and American Flyers, two major providers of aircraft services, including fuel, flight instruction, hangars and amenities for charter operators.

The move to evict the companies is part of the city’s strategy to force out aviation tenants, reduce aircraft flights and shut down the oldest operating airport in Los Angeles County by July 2018.

If the evictions go forward, the city plans to replace Atlantic and American Flyers with its own municipal aviation company and sell bio-fuel for jets and unleaded gas for propeller planes to reduce aircraft emissions. Federal law allows governments that operate airports to provide services themselves instead of relying on private companies.

The city sent the first notices to evict in mid-September and filed lawsuits against both tenants in November to regain possession of the property.

“While we are disappointed but not surprised that the FAA has decided to issue this interim order on the pending evictions of Atlantic and American Flyer, we remain committed to replacing private fixed-based operations with public services,” Mayor Tony Vasquez said.

The cease-and-desist order states that Santa Monica’s “unremitting effort” to remove critical aeronautical services and its “hostility” to the sale of leaded fuel still needed by many aircraft is “a clear contravention of law.”

The order notes that general aviation aircraft, business jets and turboprop aircraft cannot operate using the fuels approved by the City Council.  It further states that the city has no desire to provide all the services offered by the companies, such as flight training.

Under agreements with the federal government, the city must make the airport available for public use and benefit. It cannot discriminate against aircraft types or uses and must make space available for aviation tenants on reasonable terms based on good faith negotiations.

“The city has failed to grant any aeronautical leases since 2015 and is alleged to have negotiated in bad faith while seeking onerous and unreasonable terms,” according to the cease-and-desist order, which later states that the leasing policy for the airport fails to include aviation.

“We are pleased that the FAA has recognized our client’s federally protected right to be at the airport,” said R. Christopher Harshman, an attorney for American Flyers.

In a separate action, Atlantic Aviation and American Flyers have asked a Los Angeles County Superior Court judge to halt the evictions. A hearing is set for Jan. 3.

Santa Monica officials say they are working in “good faith” to provide the services and fuel required by federal regulations. They have 30 days to respond to the FAA’s cease-and-desist order.

In late September, the FAA opened a wide-ranging investigation to determine whether the city’s so-called starvation strategy for the airport violates its federal obligations that date back to the late 1940s.

The 227-acre airport has about 270 aircraft and averages 452 takeoffs and landings per day. Supporters say it is an economic benefit for the region, provides a base of operations for major emergencies and helps relieve crowded airspace at Los Angeles International Airport.

Opponents contend the airport should be closed because of noise pollution, potentially harmful emissions from aircraft engines and the risk of a serious crash in surrounding neighborhoods.

P7 - Good catch, CW; well done FAA.

Now as another point of comparison I note there was a recent addition (correcting the record) to the RRAT committee Supplementary Estimates webpage:
Quote:2.) Clarification of evidence, received 7 December 2016 from Pip Spence, Acting Deputy Secretary, Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development

(
PDF 463KB)

Referring to the weasel worded Departmental quote on the second page:

Quote:[Image: Untitled_Clipping_121716_022526_PM.jpg]

Wonder why the number of complainants at "three of the largest pilot training airports" has dropped off? Wouldn't have anything to do with the decline of GA pilot training would it? - Bureaucratic DIPSHITS... Angry

And at a time, according to Boeing, when World demand for pilots is just about to peak: Part II - Yep all's good in aviation for 2016 - I repeat DIPSHITS! Dodgy


MTF...P2 Cool
Reply
#13

Just in case anyone is wondering how far Australian aviation has regressed:

See HERE
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)