A Gold Star Plug.
#1

Perhaps more than any other, Australian Flying Magazine, it’s editorial team and management courage are doing their level best to ‘foster and promote’ flying in this wide brown land. The big end of the media, like the Australian with a few outstanding examples (Higgins for one) for some strange reason seem too afraid to address the serious difficulties aviation in Australia faces. It is very much in the public’s interest to know how their tax dollars are used to ensure ‘safety’ and promote the myths. Half baked, candy coated stories spun from the dross of press release, hidden behind a paywall fail to impress. There are some seriously ‘rock you’ tales out there – but they fail to get beyond the latest CASA PR blurb. Australian Flying Magazine does.
 
Of particular note is the support the ‘Last Minute Hitch’ receives from his masters; who must tread a fine line. Hitch is mostly ‘balanced’, proactive and tries hard to be clear sighted. Well done that man; which earns a Tim Tam. But the gold star has been awarded for a less obvious reason. His ceaseless efforts to ‘unite’ the diverse, awkward, often contradictory opinions of the various alphabet soup groups into a cohesive, unilateral declaration how to resolve the crisis Sport and Reactional flying finds itself in. For example the pointless RAOz and AOPA wrangle: there must be common ground enough to present a united approach to situation – Hitch at least tries to find that small plot of ground.
 
The subscription to Oz Flying is a modest one; in Aunt Pru’s opinion, the expense is well justified, just for a good read - if nothing else.
 
Two options – Great Magazines – or - Isubscribe.
Reply
#2

Hitch on Govt approving REX LA for hiring OS pilotsDodgy  



[Image: rex_albury.jpg]

REX to search Overseas for Pilots and Instructors
12 November 2019
Comments 1 Comment
    

Regional Express (Rex) will source pilots, engineers and instructors from overseas despite having its own flying academy here in Australia.

In an annoucement released yesterday, Rex said that the Federal Government had granted them a five-year labour agreement (LA) that would enable the airline to fill projected pilot shortages by recruiting from abroad.

Rex Deputy Chairman, John Sharp AM, said the LA would solve several issues facing the airline.

"The Rex Group is confident the LA will provide much needed assistance in helping us fill up our establishment for pilots and engineers so that we can continue to provide regular, reliable and affordable air services to regional and remote communities throughout our vast Regular Public Transport (RPT) network in every state in Australia,” he said.

“The LA also allows accessibility to more flight instructors and this will bolster our capability to produce more pilots at our state-of-the-art pilot academy, the Australian Airline Pilot Academy (AAPA), based in Wagga Wagga, NSW, thereby perpetuating the cycle of pilots to meet the needs of the Rex Group and the broader aviation industry in Australia."

Sharp also said that despite the LA, Rex would continue to source pilots, instructors and engineers in Australia as a priority.

"The Rex Group will continue its search for skilled workers in Australia and is 100% committed to supporting local employment by ensuring that the employment of Australian workers will take precedence over skilled workers from overseas.

"For example, Rex has gone to extraordinary lengths to overcome the critical shortage of pilots by establishing a pilot academy over 10 years ago to train local cadets to be airline pilots with Rex – something which even Qantas or Virgin Australia has not done to this day.”

The LA enables Rex to recruit overseas pilots, maintenance engineersand instructors who satisfy prescribed conditions under the Temporary Skills Shortage visa (TSS) subclass 482.

Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/lates...6HXJSmv.99


Comment:

Quote:Peter John-Francis  17 hours ago

There is a pilot shortage, but if REX was prepared to pay market value for their pilots they would not need to import cheap labour. They would retain their pilots if pay and conditions were better at REX. The mathematics of supply & demand are simple. For REX to suggest otherwise is disingenuous.




Remember you heard it first on Oz Flying... Wink


MTF...P2  Tongue
Reply
#3

[Image: hitch_tbm.jpg]

The Last Minute Hitch: 15 November 2019

15 November 2019
    


– Steve Hitchen

An era ended this week with the final issue of Flightpath magazine being distributed. Australian Flying's sister title was in production for 31 years, rising as it did in concert with the burgeoning antique and warbird communities in this country. Flightpath tapped into a passion for old flying machines and a deep love of aviation history, and gave enthusiasts a conduit to connect themselves with the inner sanctum of a movement that most readers were relegated to worshipping from afar. It also found favour with the intimates of the antique and warbird communities, thanks to a reputation for accuracy and the integrity and street cred of editor Rob Fox and his cohort of expert contributors. Flightpath fell victim to an economic reality that hangs in Damoclean style over all aviation print titles. Since 2012, no less than seven have folded, three of them in 2019 alone. And so we must, reluctantly, farewell Flightpath, not because it wasn't a quality magazine, but because the numbers were simply against it as they were for all those other titles. To Foxy, MJC, James, Ron, Andy and all those others who made the magazine the best in its field, I say, well done. The aviation community is better off for your work.

Quote:"..schools don't want to cover the cost of that and the instructors can't.."


Are we seeing the first burning signs of aviation's very own climate change? Regional Express this week announced they had been given permission to import pilots, instructors and engineers ... and this is an airline that has its own academy! Surely if you want more pilots, you simply expand your academy and make more places open to students? Well, no, the problem isn't a lack of students. Students get nowhere without instructors, and that is where the real shortage lies. New regulations introduced with Part 61 and the impact of FEE-HELP positions at schools have had a beaver-dam affect on the flow of new instructors into the industry. Before the government-funded short-cut to airlines was introduced, new CPLs got themselves an instructor's rating (IR) and spent time teaching in schools, building hours whilst they waited on their chance to impress the airline recruiters. That's not the way it happens any more; those CPLs are going straight to the airlines without passing through the GA stream first. Where Part 61 has queered everything for Australia is that it introduces significant new costs for instructors that don't earn a lot to start with. The new regs require flight examination for just about every teaching discipline, with the associated costs. An instructor may have an IR and an instrument rating, but Part 61 says they can't teach IFR unless they've passed an extra examination to get an approval to do so. The schools don't want to cover the cost of that and the instructors can't, so it doesn't happen. What good to an academy is an instructor who can't teach a CPL to fly on instruments? No instructors means no new airline pilots, so Rex's hand was really forced; they have little option but to bring in people who have been trained outside the crucible of the changing training climate in Australia. This is probably just the start.
When Essendon Airport P/L (EAPL) drew up their draft master plan in April this year, they were pretty sure that Melbourne Airport's third runway was going to be a parallel 09/27 built south of the current apron and terminal. All indications pointed to that. Now Melbourne Airport has opted to prioritise another north-south runway built west of the ATC tower, there is less potential for conflict with Essendon's 17/35 ... at least for the next 20 years. The third runway is expected to be approved, built and operational by 2025, but then Melbourne's operators will be turning their eyes toward the fourth runway, a parallel east-west which will complete the "hashtag" layout. Then the problems with 17/35 at Essendon will re-emerge. However, we're now talking about sometime around 2040, so let's not get het-up about it just yet. Right now the change is a bit inconvenient for EAPL, who based their master plan on the assumption that MEL would put in the east-west runway first. Back to the drawing board?

Is this the end of Mooney, again? Since being rebirthed in 2013, the iconic US manufacturer has struggled with new aircraft sales, which is almost a death knell for any aircraft builder. The shutdown this week is mysterious as it wasn't announced and the media found out through an answering machine message left on the company phone. It could be that the company is simply in abeyance whilst they work things out, or it could be the end. Or ... the Chinese owners could be about to transfer manufacture to China. Most interesting is that apparently there is no sign of the company applying for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, yet. This means there is still hope that the shutdown is not forever. But, since getting back into building new aeroplanes, Mooney has sold only 34 of them. That's not an encouraging basis for a future business plan, even if you are backed by a seemingly bottomless pit of Yen.


May your gauges always be in the green,


Hitch


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




And comment from Sandy... Wink

Quote:Sandy Reith • 10 hours ago

Flying training is the bedrock of aviation and the mainstream of General Aviation. Hitch is correct to pin the worst aspects of Part 61 on the pilot shortage but the downward slide began many years before. CASA has been putting on it’s bureaucratic screws and ‘user pays’ regime onto the flying school industry from the early 90s. I can relate this trajectory to my own experience as CFI and principal of my own GA business which began in 1968 and with training added in ‘72. New fees and burgeoning paperwork really got underway with the conversion of the Department of Civil Aviation, under Ministerial control, into an independent Commonwealth corporate body, CAA then name changed to CASA. This experimental form of governance has been a massive failure, without the responsibility of a Minister back to Parliament and the people CASA is virtually a power unto itself for itself and hence the rules which are not fit for purpose and which have killed off thousands of GA jobs. We’ve lost $millions in GA aircraft capital value, particularly with the inappropriate mandating of Cessna Special Instruction Documents and dozens, if not hundreds, of Cessnas are languishing unused and simply rotting away. Aircraft are being exported, capital goods that we can ill afford to lose.

How is it in the USA? No instructor gradings, no extra permit which might cost here $50,000 or much more, get your rating and start training immediately. No formal syllabus must be followed, just have your student reach the standard. Much of the US rules if transgressed are not treated as criminal offences (strict liability). Own up here to even minor mistakes or omissions and you risk copping a criminal conviction. Try getting a visa for international travel, or a job or ASIC with that around your neck. Some such matters don’t even rate a mention in the USA. The upshot is that Aussies can go to the USA and learn to fly much faster and for a lot less money than here. Only the Parliament can alter the disgraceful state of General Aviation in Australia by allowing it to discard the straight jacket and grow freely like any other industry.

MTF...P2  Tongue
Reply
#4

This week in Oz Flying... Wink


Via the Yaffa:


[Image: vh_cqa.jpg]

ATSB releases Swan River Investigation Report
20 November 2019
Comments 0 Comments
    


The Australian Transport Safety Bureau yesterday released the investigation report into the crash of a Grumman Mallard into the Swan River at Perth in 2017.

VH-CQA was taking part in an Australia Day display over Perth Water on 26 January 2017 when it crashed into the river during the display. 
The pilot and passenger were killed and the aircraft destroyed.

The pilot of the aircraft had already completed two passes across Perth Water in front of Langley Park behind Caravan floatplane VH-MOX, when the pilot requested a third, unplanned pass.

"The aircraft then returned to the display area without the Caravan and in a manner contrary to the standard inbound procedure, requiring turns at higher bank angles and lower altitudes within a confined area to become established on the display path," the ATSB states.

"The ATSB investigation found that the aircraft stalled at an unrecoverable height. Had the Mallard re-entered the display area using the standard procedure for the air display, the manoeuvres required to position for the third pass would have been relatively benign with a significantly reduced risk of mishandling the aircraft."

Much of the ATSB report focuses on the CASA approval process put in place at the time, and the pilot's decision to carry a passenger during the display.

"CASA did not have an effective frame work to approve and oversight air displays," the report states, "predominantly due to the following factors:
  • while the Air Display Manual provided guidance to organisers conducting an air display, it did not inherently provide the processes and tools needed for CASA to approve and oversee one and no other documented guidance existed

  • unlike the accreditation models adopted by some other countries, CASA did not have a systemic approach for assessing the suitability of those responsible for organising, co-ordinating and participating in air displays

  • CASA did not have a structured process to ensure that risks were both identified and adequately treated."

The ATSB noted that the pilot had also flown CQA at Evans Head with a passenger and was told by CASA that the person did not form "essential crew" and therefore should not have been on the aeroplane during the display. That information had not been conveyed to the CASA staff who approved the Swan River display. The pilot said the passenger was essential to help extend the landing gear in the event of a system failure. However, the ATSB was unable to find support for that from other Mallard pilots.

Since the accident, CASA has released a new Air Display Manual that addressed some of the issues raised by the ATSB including the requirement for detailed risk assessments.

The full investigation report is available on the ATSB website.

Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/lates...uD3JO2a.99





 [Image: staa.jpg]

Regional Express buys Ballarat Training Academy
19 November 2019
Comments 0 Comments

Australian regional carrier Regional Express (Rex) has bought ST Aerospace Academy Australia (STAA) at Ballarat, the airline announced this morning.

Singapore-based ST Engineering founded the academy at Ballarat more than 10 years ago to train students largely for the Chinese Airlines and today has 140 students training for airlines such as Air China, Xiamen and Hainan.

Chris Hine, Executive Chairman of the Rex-owned Australian Airline Pilot Academy (APAA) in Wagga Wagga said that STAA stood to benefit from the airline's experience in training students to airline standards.

“With this acquisition the Rex Group, which operates the biggest regional airline network in Australia, will draw on its expertise and experience at AAPA in training pilots to rigorous airline standards to help STAA(A) stand out from all the other pilot academies that train commercial pilots to general aviation standards," he said.

“Airlines worldwide are looking for alternatives to training pilots in the United States for various reasons and Australia is at the top of the list as an alternative.”

“We intend to leverage on our unique and unparalleled expertise to further expand our pilot training capabilities. We will look at opening further satellite bases in Australia to respond to the insatiable worldwide demand for professional pilots that are trained to rigorous airline standards. We have already identified one location and will consider more as we expand.”

Rex intends to continue sourcing training candidates from overseas, which it says will earn export dollars for Australia and create jobs in regional areas.

According to Rex, the combination of STAA and AAPA gives the airline the largest pilot training of any airline in the world.
Last week, Rex was granted permission to import pilots and instructors from overseas to fill gaps in demand in Australia.




SETP Shipments slump as Pistons forge Ahead
18 November 2019
Comments 0 Comments
    T
he Q3 2019 shipment figures released overnight by the General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA) showed a marked decrease in demand for Single-engined Turbo-prop (SETP) aeroplanes, whilst piston-powered aeroplanes displayed encouraging growth.

The SETP sector, which once propped-up the flagging industry, is down 11.6% over the first three quarters of 2019 compared with the same period last year. No model in the category experienced a shipment result that was higher for the quarter than it was in 2018.
Conversely, piston-engined aircraft are up 12.3% for the same period, with Piper's Archer III and Cirrus' SR22/T continuing to show the way.

"The first nine months of 2019 show positive results for business jets and piston airplanes,“ said GAMA President and CEO Pete Bunce. “Turbo-props and rotorcraft, however, continued to encounter headwinds.

"Despite these mixed results, our manufacturers continue their investments in advanced factory machinery, design software, and associated processes that keep product development cycles robust and in-turn bring advances in fuel efficiency, capability, and safety to the global fleet."

Piper's Archer III continued its resurgence in the trainer market with year-to-date to the end of Q3 at 116 aircraft. By comparison, Piper delivered 72 Archers for the same period in 2018 and only 45 for the YTD 2017 match. For 2016, only 42 Archers were sold in the entire calendar year.

Diamond's DA40 sales performed well for the July-September quarter with the 38 aircraft shipped a huge improvement over the eight delivered in Q3 2018 and Cessna's C172SP holding ground in third place with 28 aircraft sold. Cirrus' SR20, however, continued to struggle in the market with only nine examples sent to customers.

With Cirrus' SR22 streets ahead in the large single market, the battle for second place was won for the quarter by the Cessna C182T, albeit 52 airframes behind the leader. Ironically, just as the new broke of Mooney International's shutdown, the company shipped four M20 Acclaim/Ovations, it's equal best result since production re-started in 2014.

Piston twin shipments were nothing to write home about, with the DA42 topping the charts with 13 aircraft delivered, slightly eclipsing Tecnam's P2006T on nine. Piper failed to move any Seneca's for the third quarter in a row.

But us was in the SETP sector that the story turned sour for GA shipment. Pilatus ubiquitous PC-12 led the way, but showed zero growth over last year in either the quarterly or the year-to-date figures. Daher's TBM 900 series also recorded flat results with Cessna's Caravan range, Quest Kodiak and Piper's M500/600 all experiencing a sales slide.

Cirrus has also cemented itself in the leadership role of the single-pilot jet sector. The 21 SF50 Visions shipped was easily the best result, with the rising Pilatus PC-24 on 11 and the Honda HA420 on eight. Traditional leaders, the Cessna M2 and Phenom 100/300 were both down for the quarter compared to 2018.

Finally, a special mention to GippsAero's Airvan 8, which recorded deliveries of five aircraft for the quarter. That represents a 400% increase over the 2018 figure and you have to look back to Q1 2017 before you'll find a better result.

[b] Major Shipment Figures[/b]
Aircraft
[b]Q3 2019[/b]
[b]Q3 2018[/b]
[b]Change[/b]
Piper Warrior III
0
0
0%
Cessna C172SP
28
30
-7%
Piper Archer III
39
34
15%
Diamond DA40
31
8
288%
Cirrus SR20
9
9
0%
Tecnam P2010
9
3
200%
 
 
 
 
Cessna C182T
14
9
56%
Beech G36 Bonanza
2
5
-60%
Cirrus SR22/T
76
81
-6%
Cessna TTx
0
0
-
Piper M350/Matrix
4
5
-20%
Mooney Ovation/Acclaim
4
3
33%
 
 
 
 
Beech G58 Baron
3
4
-25%
Piper Seminole
8
9
-11%
Piper Seneca V
0
0
0%
Diamond DA42
13
14
-7%
Tecnam P2006T
9
8
13%
Diamond DA62
7
15
-53%
 
 
 
 
Cessna Caravan Series
17
24
-29%
Quest Kodiak 100
2
6
-67%
Pilatus PC12
20
20
0%
Daher TBM 900/910/930
11
11
0%
PAC 750XL
1
3
-67%
Piper Meridian/M500/M600
11
15
-27%
 
 
 
 
Cessna Mustang & M2
5
6
-17%
Eclipse 550
0
0
-
Embraer Phenom 100 & 300
15
17
-12%
Honda HA420
8
4
100%
SF50 Vision
21
16
31%
Pilatus PC24
11
6
83%
 
 
 
 
Cessna T206H
13
6
117%
GippsAero Airvan 8
5
1
400%

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



Reply
#5

The Last Minute Hitch: 22 November 2019

Flying academies, turbo-props and awarded airports. Read more


Quote:Regional Express seems to have come up with a left-of-centre answer to its crew shortage. The airline this week announced it had bought Singapore-based ST Engineering's Ballarat flying academy, STAA. STAA has been training students for Chinese airlines for over 10 years and still has some good contracts in place. Rex already had their own academy at Wagga Wagga, and adding the Ballarat operation gives them more capacity and shadows Qantas' move to set up flying schools in Toowoomba and Mackay. But buildings, aeroplanes and runways don't train students to ATPL level ... only instructors can do that. Right now this country is in the grip of a regulation-driven instructor drought that threatens the basic foundations of the GA industry. That won't have much of an impact on Rex. You may remember a news story from two weeks ago where Rex announced they had gained permission to import instructors? So what they can do is set up a pipeline for instructors trained overseas away from the boat-anchor regulation of Part 61 to come to their academies at Ballarat and Wagga Wagga. Smart move on their behalf. However, this is likely to drive yet another nail into the coffin of private GA, as employment opportunities for the very few instructors trained here dry-up even further.
Reply
#6

[Image: hitch_tbm.jpg]

The Last Minute Hitch: 29 November 2019

Bill Bristow, maintenance regs and towers by remote control. Read more



Quote:
– Steve Hitchen


Bill Bristow can retire knowing his contribution to regional Australia has been substantial. As the founder of Angel Flight he created a network of health workers, aviators and volunteers that provide an invaluable service to remote communities. Without Bristow, there would still be thousands of people each year condemned to long and arduous road trips on Australia's rough-edged regional highways; not the sort of thing you want when you're already battling illness. Thanks to Bristow, many people no longer have to endure that. His network remains intact thanks to the dedication of the people who make Angel Flight run as efficiently and safely as it does. Well done, Bill Bristow, regional Australia owes you a huge debt of gratitude
Quote:
"a solution is crafted that has no chance of actually increasing safety.."

CASA is determined to close the safety gap between charter and air transport, but could they be designing a bridge to cross a river that doesn't actually exist? Both CASA and the ATSB have displayed a liking for making decisions based on the quantitiative value of statistics rather than the qualitative value of genuine safety. The statistics are wielded to prove an unsafe condition, then a solution is crafted that has no chance of actually increasing safety. Sometimes the solution doesn't fit the problem; other times the problem doesn't actually exist. The move to switch charter operations into the air transport sector and apply more stringent maintenance requirements is, I believe, another example of this. To declare that this move is going to bring about an increase in safety assumes (a) the unsafe condition in charter operations is maintenance-related and (b) the higher maintenance requirements will resolve the unsafe condition. I believe the logic here is flawed, because CASA has dawdled on making this change for 20 years, which leads me to believe it doesn't actually exist. CASA has admitted that the change to these maintenance regs stems from a ministerial directive given to them in 1999. If a known unsafe condition existed in 1999, why have they allowed it to continue unchecked for 20 years? That the charter fleet has an average age of over 40 years is evidence that aeroplanes are not falling out of the sky, and further evidence that the maintenance regimes they've been under since Noah's Ark was a rowboat were good enough to ensure that no unsafe condition existed. The new regs are therefore likely to achieve nothing.


Digital tower technology is probably inevitable with only the places and the systems to be decided. And why would it not be? Technology that is never adopted is usually the victim of vested interest in another direction or is actually not fit for the purpose for which it was designed. With trials at Heathrow and several other test sites around the world, it looks to be full-steam ahead for this tehcnology. Airservices is testing a Sydney contingency system, but you can bet they'll be keeping the corners of their eyes on Airways NZ's tower at Invercargill. Airways NZ is replacing the tower with a remote digital system, and there are several parallels in Australia where Class D towers might one day be consigned to history in favour of digital technology. Alice Springs is perhaps the best example, but there are others around the country as well. I, for one, won't discount Avalon as being an appropriate target. The question unanswered so far is whether or not this technology could be introduced at places that currently aren't towered at all. Ballina-Byron, Wagga Wagga, Dubbo, Mildura... all of them are busy, but still below CASA's movement threshold for a mandatory ATC service. Once perfected, could the technology enable these airports to become controlled quite cheaply? Regardless of where and how it gets deployed, the technology is definitely coming even if it takes a few years yet.


May you gauges always be in the green,


Hitch

MTF...P2  Tongue
Reply
#7

Via the Yaffa... Wink


The Last Minute Hitch: 6 December 2019


GAAN, Inquiry Road, Airventure and MTOW feedback 


– Steve Hitchen

When you spend as much time flinging brickbats as I do, it's good to be able to hand out bouquets when they are deserved. This week, I get to present flowers to the Department of Infrastructure for appointing Andrew Andersen as chair of the new General Aviation Advisory Network (GAAN). Andersen garners a level of respect in the aviation community that has no parallel. As a private pilot, passionate GA advocate and very cluey bloke, Andersen will infuse GAAN meetings with an air of co-operation and progress with no personal agenda attached other than a desire to see GA flourish. Over many years, he has shown a willingness to put in the hard yards when it comes to GA and is well-versed in the problems, strengths and prospects of general aviation. But Andersen is no silver bullet as indeed no chairman is, nor can be expected to be. In the end it will be up to all members of the GAAN to knuckle down and carry the hopes and expectations of all GA to the minister. Whether or not that minister is prepared to take advice from his advisors is not something that GAAN can control, but I am taking Andersen's appointment as a sign that someone high up is looking to make some forward steps.

Quote:what faith can the aviation community have that this inquiry will actually do anything at all?
Our aviation reform Tom-Tom is taking us down Inquiry Road again. The announcement of an inquiry into CASA regulation and the impact on GA has divided the aviation community into two camps: the "stick-it-to-them" camp and the "not-another-bloody-inquiry" camp. There are pros and cons to both arguments and advocates of corresponding strength on both sides. Firstly, we need to recognise Senator Susan McDonald for instigating this inquiry regardless of what you think: some action is always better than no action. It is also better to be talked about than not talked about. Clearly the senator has enough concern to take what ever action is immediately in her power. But we have been here before and we have presented the evidence before and even though governments and regulators have pointed out how much they've done, nothing has actually changed in the aviation industry's decline or predicament. So what faith can the aviation community have that this inquiry will actually do anything at all? That's a very hard question to ask and an even harder one to answer. The aviation community would be justified taking a cynical approach and refusing to engage with the senators based on a complete lack of faith. I don't think we should do that. The worst thing we can do right now is show the minister (who didn't commission this inquiry) that we aren't prepared to stand up for ourselves and our industry. We can't nobble attempts by the senators to quantify and qualify the impacts rampant regulation has had. Yes, we need to fasten our seat belts and take out our false teeth, because we need to again negotiate the bone-rattling potholes of Inquiry Road.
 

I wrote earlier this week that there is nothing good to come from the financial situation that AirVenture Australia has found itself in. It shows how vulnerable air shows are to weather, regulation and apathy and how the commercial side of an air show can suffer badly when the cost outweighs the income. Air shows are aviation's showcase to a general public that otherwise would be exposed to our community only through heavy jets passing overhead and episodes of Air Crash Investigation. But we can't rely on the public to carry the day; we, the aviation community, also need to get behind them in numbers worth talking about. If air shows aren't a big enough drawcard for aviators, we can't expect them to be attractive to non-aviators. Yes, gate attendances at AirVenture Australia were down, attributed mostly to the weather, but the aviation community itself didn't show up en masse either, which can't have helped the financial spreadsheet less red. As a result, AirVenture Australia, like too many other air shows and fly-ins before it, will disappear from the aviation calendar for next year and beyond. By no-one's measure is that good for aviation in Australia.

It would probably take an Act of Parliament now to stop RAAus getting their weight increase. It was largely a fait accompli since CASA accidentally made it known they supported the proposal themselves, and now the vast majority of feedback has indicated support for the idea, only a political roadblock in [b]Canberra[/b] has the power to stop it. If we pare the argument down to its basics, there is not a lot of justification for them not getting the increase in operational terms. An aeroplane is an aeroplane and the sky is the sky regardless of what's painted on the side of the fuselage. The most powerful objections are political and have the ability to be resolved in other ways rather than spearing this proposal in the side. Issues of stall speed, maintenance and medicals seem to be most prevalent in the feedback, along with a broad-based objection of inconsistency in regulation. None of these should be dismissed as the output of cranks; they all have their own merits, and more work needs to be put in on each of them. We'll all get another chance to dissect the proposals when the draft rules are written, but you can rest assured the MTOW increase is going to happen inside of two years ... unless there's an Act of Parliament coming that we don't know about.

May your gauges always be in the green,

Hitch


Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/the-l...H7bQgov.99
Reply
#8

So far there appears to be no LMH this week... Huh

However there was a late comment from Sandy in reply to St Commode linking pilot attitude to serious incidents/accidents that I thought was worth regurgitating... Wink




Sandy Reith • 3 days ago

Mr. Carmody shows with his attitude and beliefs that he fails to appreciate that 90% of General Aviation’s (GA) bad attitude towards CASA is due the record of CASA. In the earlier phase of my career in GA, in particular before 1988, most of the industry granted a measure of respect to the regulator even though it was paternalistic, rule bound and inefficient. The regulatory framework was sorely in need of updating as was the administrative function of CASA (or predecessor by other names) but flying businesses could operate. In it’s circular letter, 3rd April 1989, written to operators it stated that it would rewrite the rules to provide “more business-like procedures....with view to reducing requirements, and their associated costs, to a minimum.”

In the one crucial area of GA, by wiping out most of Australia’s flying schools, by steadily increasing the paperwork burdens and more and more stringent, complex and impractical rules, CASA has failed spectacularly to honour it’s promise and has lost the trust of virtually the whole of the aviation industry.

The Government’s action to create an independent Commonwealth corporate body and task it with rewriting the rules, thirty-one years and still not finished, has been a colossal failure of governance that has cost Australia dearly.

The lines of government responsibility back to the electors was effectively discarded and needs to be re-established. In the meantime some interim measures must be ordered by government if it wishes to create GA jobs and services. Measures like independent instructors and maintenance engineers, self declared private pilot medicals, and the removal of the majority of the super expensive two year Aviation Security Identity Card (ASIC) requirements will have to be implemented quickly to prevent further debilitating GA industry decline.




This prompted me (on behalf of K -  Confused ) to reply with:

Quote:Sam Jackson  Sandy Reith • 8 minutes ago
Well said Sandy, spot on! Once again I refer you to the comment from Anderson (ref: http://www.australianflying... ) now over 5 years ago and then think - what's changed?:

Anderson • 5 years ago

CASA serves only the interests of CASA.

First and foremost – self-perpetuation.

Closely followed by reaching its claws into the pocket of every GA participant to extract the maximum bounty to fund said self-perpetuation.

It long ago became an unwieldy beast that shed even any sort of pretence it might actually serve the aviation community that funds it through the regular extortionate gouging, both direct and indirect.

CASA certainly does “make no apologies” – never has, never will (if past behaviour is any guide)…

Why then does it expect anyone with a brain and even the slightest modicum of historical fact into aviation in Australia to believe anything the self declared non-apologist has to say on any topic?

It has been proven time and time again to be untrustworthy on almost every level (secret collusion to influence ATSB investigations and doctor accident reports – anyone, anyone…?).

An organisation that simply lacks credibility within the real aviation community (ie, not the segment that benefits from the largesse, corporate favours and behind the scenes political shenanigans) cannot be taken at face value.

Bureaucratic regulation for all is the panacea for everything.

By now it is clear the regulatory behemoth seeks to destroy GA and everything associated with it, to not only bite the hand that feeds it but to chomp, mangle and swallow to the GA armpit and beyond.

Whatever any new purported “safety measures” might be from CASA for the community service flight sector, it will be a rocky transition to yet more rules that will do nothing to protect anyone.

The only new protection needed is for the selfless humanitarians in the community service flight sector (and GA generally) from the CASA bureaucrats.

The “safety measures” will come with some new fee or charge associated – nominal at first of course so as not to create too much resistance – and given some fashionable newspeak name to allay any unease, which will of course be
simultaneously denounced as “misplaced concerns” when the CASA PR machine swings into action.

We all know by now where “nominal” fees end up down the track – the next CASA cash cow.

Remember this all well folks, for what will be sold out of both sides of the CASA mouth in the months and years ahead will be nothing but a wolf in the guise of a sheep. Harmless at first, only to reveal a savage bite when it’s far too late to fully comprehend what really occurred.

Given the behaviour of CASA over the past years, one really does need to wonder whether they are a completely delusional bunch (given the continued expectation we will blindly accept anything they broadcast), but more importantly whether there is indeed a hidden agenda to completely rout GA – to destroy it so completely that nothing remains but empty crown land, devoid of the now GA aerodromes and ripe for redevelopment – which will all be a sheer coincidence of course.

This latest little trojan horse from CASA is undoubtedly but the next distraction to interfere where none is needed and to spew forth but more needless regulation. This time it will be aimed squarely at those who provide a tremendous
service and benefit to the community.

A type of actual service that CASA would not recognise if it were placed directly in front of its bloated waistline.

MTF...P2  Tongue


Ps Letter from Anderson can also be seen here: https://auntypru.com/letter-from-anderson/
Reply
#9

(12-14-2019, 01:09 PM)Peetwo Wrote:  So far there appears to be no LMH this week... Huh

However there was a late comment from Sandy in reply to St Commode linking pilot attitude to serious incidents/accidents that I thought was worth regurgitating... Wink




Sandy Reith • 3 days ago

Mr. Carmody shows with his attitude and beliefs that he fails to appreciate that 90% of General Aviation’s (GA) bad attitude towards CASA is due the record of CASA. In the earlier phase of my career in GA, in particular before 1988, most of the industry granted a measure of respect to the regulator even though it was paternalistic, rule bound and inefficient. The regulatory framework was sorely in need of updating as was the administrative function of CASA (or predecessor by other names) but flying businesses could operate. In it’s circular letter, 3rd April 1989, written to operators it stated that it would rewrite the rules to provide “more business-like procedures....with view to reducing requirements, and their associated costs, to a minimum.”

In the one crucial area of GA, by wiping out most of Australia’s flying schools, by steadily increasing the paperwork burdens and more and more stringent, complex and impractical rules, CASA has failed spectacularly to honour it’s promise and has lost the trust of virtually the whole of the aviation industry.

The Government’s action to create an independent Commonwealth corporate body and task it with rewriting the rules, thirty-one years and still not finished, has been a colossal failure of governance that has cost Australia dearly.

The lines of government responsibility back to the electors was effectively discarded and needs to be re-established. In the meantime some interim measures must be ordered by government if it wishes to create GA jobs and services. Measures like independent instructors and maintenance engineers, self declared private pilot medicals, and the removal of the majority of the super expensive two year Aviation Security Identity Card (ASIC) requirements will have to be implemented quickly to prevent further debilitating GA industry decline.




This prompted me (on behalf of K -  Confused ) to reply with:

Quote:Sam Jackson  Sandy Reith • 8 minutes ago
Well said Sandy, spot on! Once again I refer you to the comment from Anderson (ref: http://www.australianflying... ) now over 5 years ago and then think - what's changed?:

Anderson • 5 years ago

CASA serves only the interests of CASA.

First and foremost – self-perpetuation.

Closely followed by reaching its claws into the pocket of every GA participant to extract the maximum bounty to fund said self-perpetuation.

It long ago became an unwieldy beast that shed even any sort of pretence it might actually serve the aviation community that funds it through the regular extortionate gouging, both direct and indirect.

CASA certainly does “make no apologies” – never has, never will (if past behaviour is any guide)…

Why then does it expect anyone with a brain and even the slightest modicum of historical fact into aviation in Australia to believe anything the self declared non-apologist has to say on any topic?

It has been proven time and time again to be untrustworthy on almost every level (secret collusion to influence ATSB investigations and doctor accident reports – anyone, anyone…?).

An organisation that simply lacks credibility within the real aviation community (ie, not the segment that benefits from the largesse, corporate favours and behind the scenes political shenanigans) cannot be taken at face value.

Bureaucratic regulation for all is the panacea for everything.

By now it is clear the regulatory behemoth seeks to destroy GA and everything associated with it, to not only bite the hand that feeds it but to chomp, mangle and swallow to the GA armpit and beyond.

Whatever any new purported “safety measures” might be from CASA for the community service flight sector, it will be a rocky transition to yet more rules that will do nothing to protect anyone.

The only new protection needed is for the selfless humanitarians in the community service flight sector (and GA generally) from the CASA bureaucrats.

The “safety measures” will come with some new fee or charge associated – nominal at first of course so as not to create too much resistance – and given some fashionable newspeak name to allay any unease, which will of course be
simultaneously denounced as “misplaced concerns” when the CASA PR machine swings into action.

We all know by now where “nominal” fees end up down the track – the next CASA cash cow.

Remember this all well folks, for what will be sold out of both sides of the CASA mouth in the months and years ahead will be nothing but a wolf in the guise of a sheep. Harmless at first, only to reveal a savage bite when it’s far too late to fully comprehend what really occurred.

Given the behaviour of CASA over the past years, one really does need to wonder whether they are a completely delusional bunch (given the continued expectation we will blindly accept anything they broadcast), but more importantly whether there is indeed a hidden agenda to completely rout GA – to destroy it so completely that nothing remains but empty crown land, devoid of the now GA aerodromes and ripe for redevelopment – which will all be a sheer coincidence of course.

This latest little trojan horse from CASA is undoubtedly but the next distraction to interfere where none is needed and to spew forth but more needless regulation. This time it will be aimed squarely at those who provide a tremendous
service and benefit to the community.

A type of actual service that CASA would not recognise if it were placed directly in front of its bloated waistline.

MTF...P2  Tongue


Ps Letter from Anderson can also be seen here: https://auntypru.com/letter-from-anderson/

The above now on Oz flying: http://disq.us/p/264enud 

Also an additional comment from Thunda: 


Quote:Thunda  Sandy Reith • 12 hours ago
Carmody has shown his true colors, when he trys to blame others for his own ignorance and arrogance.

The industry would be a lot better off without him (and others like him) holding up progress in the name of safety.

Forty years of ultralight flying without accident, including GA.

And justified criticism of
Cretins Against Sensible Aviation.

Plus Sandy on last week's LMH (I think -  Huh ):

Quote:...Hopefully Andrew Anderson will assist the Minister with advice to implement sorely needed reforms. The problem being, as Hitch points out, will the Minister actually step out from behind his many layered barricades? One can’t help wondering if the whole advisory setup is not just one of those barricades. After all we pay something in the order of half a million dollars annually just to run the Board of CASA. Couldn’t we expect that that Board would have sufficient nous, commonsense and expertise to advise the Minister about reforms that everyone, except CASA, knows must occur if mainstream GA is to survive other than a rump plaything of the very rich.

In regard to the Senate inquiry of Senator Susan McDonald, and Sen. Rex Patrick who also has been unafraid to speak out against CASA, the difficulty is that, firstly, agreeing to it will put off any real reforms for at least two years and says there is no urgency whatever. Secondly, agreeing with the need for an inquiry strongly implies that the need for reform is not well defined, or indeed that we don’t know what is needed at all. 

Other than that, yes, it will be very easy to put in a submission, find your last one to the Aviation Safety Regulation Review in your computer files and resend. Think of it like this, our Government has caused us to spend, collectively, untold money and time, let alone taxpayer funds, on virtually the same issue but has done nothing to arrest the decline of General Aviation (GA).

It beggars belief that we will meekly submit once again to yet another inquiry when the last one was only four years ago. The whole of the GA industry should be up in arms, if there’s enough left of it that’s not well and truly cowed, hamstrung or simply tired of fighting to get out of the bureaucratic straight jacket.

Increase the RAAUS weight limit? Plain as the nose on one’s face that to build a two seat aircraft, one that has the capability that most owners want, the 600 kg all up weight limit cannot be sufficient. Do the math, take away the weight of engine, prop, fuel and two people and you are left with around 260 kg for an airframe. For our vast and windy continent it was never going to be satisfactory, the proof is that the great majority of the low weight category aircraft are hard up against the this artificial weight barrier.

Government should never have split GA in this manner, and it it should be reversed. Aircraft should be built to a purpose within a graduated system of certification under the one set of of rules. Simple rules should provide a seamless graduation also in training.

Its high time that our government takes action, and we should demand action, if it is serious about generating jobs and allowing it’s citizens the freedoms we are entitled to enjoy.


Finally Hitch today came out with this bit of scuttlebutt - WTF... Huh

Quote:[Image: CASA_HQ_Canberra_34A177E0-8025-11E4-B807...DC10A6.jpg]

CASA Reshuffle to put GA in Stakeholder Group
15 December 2019
Comments 0 Comments
    


An internal restructure at CASA will move the general, recreational and sport aviation functions from the Aviation Group to the Stakeholder Engagement Group.

Described as "more of a realignment", the new structure is expected to be put in place in the coming weeks and hands responsibility for non-passenger-carrying aviation to Executive Manager Rob Walker.

It is also thought that Stakeholder Engagement will also get responsibility for implementing CASR Part 149 - Approved Self-administering Aviation Organisations, and for the impacts of CASR Part 61 on the training industry.

Currently, the GA, Recreational and Sport team falls within the Aviation Group headed by Graeme Crawford and sits alongside regulatory functions such as airworthiness, engineering, navigation, remote systems and flight standards.

CASA first set up the GA, Recreational and Sport office in early 2018, replacing the largely ineffective GA Task Force (GATF).

Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/lates...CKpY359.99

Here we go again, standard Iron Ring modus operandi, when under the pump from the IOS and pesky bloody Senators do a deckchair shuffle - UFB!  Dodgy

-> What the Hell is -
 
[non-passenger-carrying aviation] ????
 
P2 – “Here we go again, standard Iron Ring modus operandi, when under the pump from the IOS and pesky bloody Senators do a deckchair shuffle - UFB!

MTF...P2  Tongue
Reply
#10

Hitch with last LMH for the year..etc. -  Wink

In the last 24hrs the Oz Flying desk at the Yaffa press has been running hot - let's see if I can catch up... Rolleyes

First after the CASA Iron Ring deckchair announcement above there was this proclamation from St Commode:

 CASA completes Aviation Regulation Reform Program
16 December 2019


[Image: ELoxW9IVAAAl3FM?format=jpg&name=small]
    

Late last week, the Governor-General signed three pieces of aviation regulation that signified the end of a 31-year reform program.

The three parts–103, 105 and 131–complete the regulation reform started in 1988 to migrate the Civil Aviation Regulation (CAR) and other instruments into the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations (CASR).

CASA CEO and Director of Aviation Safety Shane Carmody said he was pleased the reform program was finally complete and praised industry representatives that assisted with the program.

"Two years ago we had 10 regulations to complete the CASR suite. I made a commitment to industry that we'd get them done and today I am pleased we have finally got there," he said.

“I would like to thank everyone who has contributed to the regulation development program, particularly the Aviation Safety Advisory Panel and associated Technical Working Groups in the past couple of years. It is testament to the willingness of the aviation industry to get behind our commitment to streamline the aviation safety regulations.

“Now a significant part of CASA’s focus turns to continuing to consult on the detail of some of the supporting standards and transition arrangements and preparation of guidance material to ensure the aviation community has the support they need."

The final three parts were:
  • CASR Part 103 – Sport and Recreational Aviation Operations

  • CASR Part 105 – Sport and Recreational Parachuting

  • CASR Part 141 – Manned Free Balloon Operations
The length of the reform program has been seen as a plague on the industry, with many changes increasing costs and regulatory burden. Some regulations, such as CASR Part 61, are under heavy post-implementation scrutiny, which may see more change in the future to make them more workable.

Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/lates...s3kJLCK.99



Next from the GAAGle to the GAAN with Hitch providing a basic summary of last week's meeting:  


GAAN gets off to a Flying Start
16 December 2019


[Image: ga_darwin.jpg]
    

GAAN has been set-up to advise the minister on a range of issues impacting general aviation. (Steve Hitchen)

The General Aviation Advisory Network (GAAN) is off to a good start after the first meeting following an overhaul was held in Canberra last Wednesday.

GAAN is the successor to the General Aviation Advisory Group (GAAG), and has a renewed focus under new chair Andrew Andersen.

Previously, GAAG met only two or three times per year, which is thought to have hampered progress on the GA Flight Plan project. Australian Flying believes that GAAN will aim to meet more often.

GAAN provides advice directly to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport and Regional Development Michael McCormack and recommends ways of reducing pressure and dealing with issues and trends facing the GA sector.

A spokesperson from the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Cities and Regional Development said the first meeting under the new chair was "productive and positive".

"Discussions at the meeting focussed on recent updates to the Civil Aviation Act, regional and remote policy initiatives, costs facing the general aviation sector, recent changes to aviation rules and regulations and airspace planning in the Sydney basin," the spokesperson said.

"The chair, supported by GAAN members, expressed a strong desire to focus on strategic opportunities that could be used to frame advice to the Deputy Prime Minister in order to improve the regulatory environment for the general aviation sector."

GAAN members were chosen for their skills and expertise in the aviation industry and represent a broad cross-section of the GA sector, including flight training, manufacturing, maintenance, sport and recreation, helicopters, aerial applications, RPAS and aeromedical operations.

Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/lates...2GuYdvc.99



Then Hitch does a 2019 expose with links for 7 stories that shaped the year Wink :



Seven Stories that shaped the Year
16 December 2019

[Image: hall_chiba-2019_jason_halayko.jpg]

    

Throughout all the ups and downs, the peaks and troughs, general aviation is still going after another year of turmoil and change. Some of that change holds promise; some of it holds pain. As we prepare to look forward to 2020 it's a good time also to look back on the way 2019 unfolded. Here are the top seven stories that made up the general aviation year-that-was.

#7 – Senate Inquiry into CASA
A late story to top off the year, the Senate Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee announced another inquiry into the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA). This time the promised focus is the impact of regulation on GA. The story was met with optimism, opposition, apathy and excitement as the GA community began to wonder if we really did need another inquiry. Unlike the Aviation Safety Regulation Review (ASRR) of five years ago, this one is not sanctioned by the minister, which means after all the works is done and the report tabled, the government is under no obligation to respond to it. On the plus side, any focus on the ails of GA is good for the aviation community and the senators will get the story very loud and very clear.
Senate to launch Two-year Inquiry into CASA and GA

#6 – Regional Airports Grant Program
This 2019 election promise got off to a stuttering start with the beginning scheduled for 1 July not actually happening until late October. The program promises $100 milion for upgrading airports that are situated in regional areas, complementing the Remote Airstrips Upgrade Program (RAUP). With many regional airports decaying for lack of funding, the scheme was roundly applauded by the industry and in particular the Australian Airports Association, which has been ringing bells about the parlous state of regional airports for some time. The first round will tip $45 million into regional aviation in the next two years alone.
Coalition pledges Millions to Regional Airports 1 April 2019
Federal Government launches Regional Airports Grant Program 11 October 2019

#5 – Australian Pilot Training Alliance
After a regulatory disaster that cost him over $1 million, flying instructor and business owner Glen Buckley took on CASA over their attitudes and actions in granting the Australian Pilot Training Alliance a Part 142 approval, only to effectively then rule the organisation illegal. The meetings, e-mails and wrangling went on for months as his company struggled on underneath mounting costs, with Buckley seeking recompense from CASA and a definitive ruling on his approval. After selling the company for the value of it's debts only, Buckley launched a GoFundMe page that has since raised over $50,000 from the GA community to fund a legal challenge. This story is far from over.
Crowdfunding Page set up to tackle CASA 27 August 2019

#4 – Matt Hall's Red Bull Air Race World Championship
The sudden truncation of the 2019 Red Bull Air Race Series and cancelation of any future races severely reduced Australian Matt Hall's opportunities to realise a dream of being a World Champion. Second three times in his career, the driven Aussie was in a good spot to challenge yet again when the last four races of the season were axed. Hall went to the last ever race in Chiba, Japan, knowing that only a great performance for he and his team would prevent his from wondering what might have been for decades to come. With it all on the line, Matt and his team took their final opportunity, and after circumstances fell their way, held the championship trophy on high for the first time. Hall had scored more points than any other pilot since 2014, so there was no more deserving winner that the man from Newcastle.
And then There Were Three: the Final Red Bull Air Race 6 September 2019
Yes, Matt, You're the World Champion 9 September 2019

#3 – CASR Part 149 and Maximum Take-off Weight Increase
Pressure ramped-up on CASA in 2019 as they prepared to put CASR Part 149 - Approved Aviation Self-administering Organisation (ASAO) into play. Part 149 legitimises the self-administration functions of organisation such as RAAus, the Australian Parachute Federation and the Gliding Federation of Australia by creating legislation rather than having them operate by exemptions. Part 149 has been opposed by some GA groups, most notably AOPA Australia and the SAAA, both of which have claimed that Part 149 is an attempt to privatise administration and create monopolies and unfair advantages. Although the focus was mainly on an imbalance between the medical regimes, the whole issue was inflamed as CASA put out consultation that would increase the maximum take-off weight of ASAO aircraft from 600 kg to 750 kg, potentially capturing several types that are traditional GA aircraft. Reponses from AOPA Australia and the SAAA recommended a complete revision of the self-administration system including harmonised regulations. The issue was even subject to a Senate inquiry.
RAAus Weight Increase Consultation due Mid Year 2 March 2019
Sport Aircraft Association out of Part 149 18 July 2019
AOPA calls for Harmonised Regulations 8 October 2019
SAAA opposes Weight Increase for RAAus 21 October 2019
CASA publishes MTOW Increase Feedback 6 December 2019

#2 – Changes to the Civil Aviation Act
It started with a 2018 push from Dick Smith and the Australian General Aviation Alliance, but was completed in 2019, albeit not in the form the proponents really wanted. Bipartisan support from both the government and the opposition made a change to the Civil Aviation Act 1988 that required CASA to take into account the economic impact on the aviation industry when it framed new regulation. That provision was in the minister's Statement of Expectations, but it was thought by many that enshrining it in the Act would give it more power. However, the government did not make the change the industry was pushing for: to remove the primacy of safety. Regardless, the government spruiked the legislation as a major win for the aviation community and the legislation walked through both houses with dissent only from the Green corner.
Minister introduces Civil Aviation Act Amendment to Parliament 21 February 2019
Act Amendment Bill doesn't go Far Enough: Albanese 5 April 2019
Senate votes down Green Objections to the Civil Aviation Bill 23 July 2019

#1 – Community Service Flight Regulations
Without doubt the most controversial issue to dog general aviation in 2019, the ongoing saga over CASA's new regulations surrounding community service flights (CSF) divided the GA community, took up a lot of time in the senate, brought mathematics into the equation and ended up in court twice. Following two fatal flight involving Angel Flight, CASA introduced restrictions on the pilots and aeroplanes that could be used in CSFs. The foundation of CASA's justification was that statistics showed that CSFs were more likely to result in an incident or accident than a normal private flight. But like all statistics, they could be read more ways than one, and Angel Flight contended that CASA's reading was wrong. When the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) released an investigation report into an Angel Flight crash that focused on Angel Flight's management moreso than the cause of the crash, the issue went feral. A disallowance motion against the CASA legislation was introduced into the senate, but was ultimately defeated by bipartisan opposition. A senate inquiry into the ATSB's handling of the investigation resulted in no recommendations against the ATSB, but two against CASA, raising questions about what was happening behind the closed doors of Canberra. It started in 2018, played out across 2019 and will carry on into 2020.

CASA to push Ahead with Community Service Restrictions 13 February 2019
Centre Alliance to move against new CSF Regulations 19 February 2019
Senate grills CASA over Community Service Flights 27 February 2019
Federal Court rules against Angel Flight 19 March 2019
Community Service Accidents: the CASA Data 11 April 2019
Angel Flight confirms Court Action 24 April 2019
Angel Flight should be using Public Transport: ATSB 13 August 2019
ATSB wears Kickback over Angel Flight Report 15 August 2019
Senate Committee to probe ATSB over Mount Gambier Report 23 August 2019
TAAAF backs CASA and ATSB in Angel Flight Ruckus 11 September 2019
ATSB escapes RRAT Hearing with no Recommendations 7 October 2019
Angel Flight Disallowance defeated in the Senate 21 October 2019
McDonald slams CASA over Angel Flight Rejection 25 October 2019
ATSB reinforces Recommendation in Letter to Angel Flight 7 November 2019

Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/lates...FJM4tU2.99
  


Finally Hitch wraps it all up with his final LMH for the year... Shy 


The Last Minute Hitch: 16 December 2019



16 December 2019


– Steve Hitchen


CASA is taking a bit of a nothing-to-see-here approach to the restructure, calling it a simple internal realignment. That may be the case for them, but there is potential for this to be a filip for general aviation. The GA/Recreational/Sport office is being transferred from Aviation Group to Stakeholder Engagement. So what have the Romans done for us? They've distanced non-passenger-carrying aviation from the intense regulations applied to commercial operations. Unfortunately, charter operations will remain behind, having been defined out of GA. It may achieve nothing over time, but it is tacit recognition that GA doesn't belong in the same bed as RPT ops and needs to be dealt with differently. Handing it to Stakeholder Engagement looks on paper to be a curious move; what do marketers and data analysts know about aviation? I suspect this could be leading to a re-branding of the group overseen by Rob Walker, which could include expansion. As it is, responsibility for CASR Part 149 on ASAOs will be going to Stakeholder Engagement, including the technical working groups that are already within Walker's sphere of influence. This realignment shortens the distance between feedback and regulations, which limits the opportunity for interference. It also makes Walker the man on the spot: he is responsible for both gathering the feedback and converting it into regulation. Fun times ahead.

Quote:Several of the CASR Parts were ill-informed and rushed into law

Yes! After 31 years of embarrassing regulation reform the project looks to be finally done. With CASA announcing the last three CASRs signed into law, they can put their quills back into their ink wells. That's the theory anyway. The reality is that although we're sticking out the "Mission Accomplished" sign like George W Bush, there is still a lot of work to do. Several of the CASR Parts were ill-informed and rushed into law without regard to whether or not they were actually functional. The boxes were ticked, but the products need a lot of re-work. There has been plenty said about Part 61, but there is still a lot to come to the surface over the next year and that will mean we'll all have to take up our pens once again. In the case of Part 61, the issue of flight training (also handed to Stakeholder Engagement) has become the paramount issue. To put it as basically as possible: we're running out of them and Part 61 makes it hard to get more. So there's still plenty to do on regulation. Consider also that some CASRs never existed as CARs (for example, Part 149) and are still effectively under construction. It seems there's still so much that needs to be done that it will never feel like the mission has indeed been accomplished ... just like George W Bush.

One thing we can take into 2020 is the potential of the General Aviation Advisory Network (GAAN). There is a good vibe around this that was never around its predecessor, the General Aviation Advisory Group (GAAG). GAAN is more that simply a re-brand, under Andrew Andersen it will function differently, have more energy and is supported better than GAAG was. That means it can work more effectively and has a better chance of influencing departmental policy. Almost every sector of GA is represented in the network, which presents a bit of ying and a bit of yang. The expertise they bring means the advice sent to the minister won't be lacking, but also comes with specialised interest. As most of the members represent interest groups, they may at time find themselves being asked to support a position that contravenes their own good. That's a tough ask, but it's what GA needs to go forward. As we stare down the barrel of 2020, I am feeling optimistic about what GAAN can achieve in the coming year, and that Andersen is the one person who can unite the GA community through GAAN. Hopefully we'll have some good stories to tell.

This is our last entry for the year 2019. The Last Minute Hitch and the weekly newsletter go into hiatus now until mid January. As is customary, I've taken a stroll back through the aviation forest of 2019 and revisited some of the stories that took up so many column-inches throughout the year. In doing so, I re-encountered several headlines that I don't believe I would have fathomed I'd be writing this time last year. It does make me think what the year ahead is going to bring. The most obvious three are the implementation of CASR Part 149, the RAAus MTOW increase and the relentless saga of community service flights. But there are more changes sticking their heads around corners; we just can't get a good sighting of them at the moment. The medicals issue is not done by a long shot and I suspect I will be writing several heads around this in the future. Physical licences may be set for a revamp to something workable and wheels are already in motion to resolve the flying instructor pipeline blockage. Lesser echoes sound about making leased airport operators more accountable for their dealings with business owners and the never-ending concerns about ageing aircraft. I am already keen to see what I write about at this time next year.


May your gauges always be in the green,


Hitch


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




MTF...P2  Tongue
Reply
#11

Hitch with 1st LMH for the year... Wink


[Image: hitch_tbm.jpg]


The Last Minute Hitch: 17 January 2020
17 January 2020
Comments 0 Comments

– Steve Hitchen

Aviation has always been a pursuit driven by the passion of the people involved. The inner desire to grab an aeroplane and fly it just for the hell of it was perhaps the greatest and only valid motivator for learning to fly. Flight training is long, costly and requires dedication. If you're in it for the uniform or the prestige of international flight or like the idea of wearing wings, go and do something else. For decades that culture ensured that pilots loved what they were doing and had the drive to battle through flight training even when at times it would have been easierand cheaperto give up. But times change and so do the motivating factors for learning to fly. Armed with millions in student loans, many people without the passion to make it through are signing up for CPL training courses at larger academies. Whereas it has brought a lot of money into the flight training industry and thousands are now pursuing aviation careers, we are still talking about pilot shortages and airlines are still raiding flying schools for their highly-qualified CFIs. Something here isn't working, and perhaps it's time that we took a good look at the academy system to see if it's performing the way the industry, and the students, need it to. The situation with Box Hill Institute and Soar Aviation was bubbling before Christmas and boiled over in the New Year as ASQA pulled their approvals to deliver aviation training recognised diploma and degree courses. This is seriously bad for the aviation community because it leads the general public to lose trust in the whole flight training network. Both organisations are appealing the decisions and there is a class action brewing instigated by students, so the story is far from complete. However, it might be a catalyst to put the entire degree system under the microscope to see if it is delivering results worthy of investing taxpayers money. I can't help but feel that if we were getting it right, Australia's pilot shortage woes would be solved and Qantas wouldn't have set up their own academy.


Quote: are we watering down the required skills for a PPL?

Controversy continued with CASA opening feedback for the new AC on stall/spin training. The DA40 crash in Queensland brought the matter to a head when it was discovered that most training aircraft don't permit spins, including incipient spins. In some cases, the stall characteristics of an aeroplane mean that an incipient spin under some circumstances is almost inevitable, particularly a stall in base configuration. A power-on stall in something like a Piper Arrow will nearly always produce a wing-drop depending on the CoG and flap, and I am told you'll need to change your strides if you do that in a Bonanza. So that puts us in a position where technically we can't do stall training in base configuration, the very point of the circuit where a stall is most likely to occur! CASA is proposing to remove the requirement to recover from an incipient spin and substitute the requirement to recognise and recover from a wing-drop at the stall. Once, to get a PPL you had to recover from a full spin on three separate occasions, then that was reduced to incipient spin and now the AC proposes bringing that back to a wing-drop only. So are we watering down the required skills for a PPL? Some people are suggesting so, and believe a course of Upset Prevention and Recovery Training (UPRT) should be mandatory for a PPL, or at least a CPL. UPRT covers what a pilot should do if they find themselves in an unusual attitude that will get more unusual unless they recover correctly ... such as an incipient spin. A full course of UPRT might be a bit over the top, but it would enhance the skills of PPLs and CPLs and give them a broader understanding of the aerodynamics around their aeroplane. I am looking forward to the AC feedback to see what other people think of the idea.


In early January I was involved in an air-to-air photo shoot for Mike Smith's new Sea Bear amphibian. We took it out over Corio Bay and the Bellarine Peninsula for an hour or so. When I got to look at the shots, I had to junk every image taken when the Sea Bear was above the horizon; smoke haze had destroyed the backgrounds. Australia has never been plagued by smoke haze to this depth before and it has caused issues for us aviators. The day of the photo shoot was not too bad, but other days have been largely unflyable. We are getting unusual weather that can be hard to interpret; cloud can be OK but the viz still below VFR minima. And it changes from departure to destination quicker than a forecast can be updated. Even if you're just up for circuits, smoke can make it hard to see the runway even from the downwind leg. The atmosphere at the moment on warm, smoky days is not really conducive to enjoying a flight, so perhaps staying on the ground is the best idea anyway. Whatever you do, be professional and stay safe. Oh, and look out for the usable Sea Bear shots in the next issue of Australian Flying.


May your gauges always be in the green,


Hitch



MTF...P2  Tongue
Reply
#12

The Last Minute Hitch: 24 January 2020


– Steve Hitchen

It was probably inevitable that Avalon's airspace architecture would be questioned one day.  Avalon can get very busy at times with inbound RPT, helicopter operations, GA transits and admittedly GA aircraft that don't quite understand the unique Class E procedures. Going to standard Class C does make things less complicated, but we need to make sure the GA community that live on the CTR fringes are accounted for. Most of those ALAs are outside the zone except Little River, which actually requires clearances to get to and from. ATC is very accommodating with ops in and out of LTR, and no-one wants to see the relationship poisoned by new procedures that make life difficult. But what does this mean for the future of E over D in Australia? The E over D configuration is common in the USA and is part of Airservices' ambitions for the future in Australia, but it has very few mates among the ATCs and regional airlines over here. Promoted in Tranche 3 of Airservices' airspace modernisation program, its impending demise over Avalon could be used as a weapon by powerful detractors to kill it dead completely.

Quote:"..the days when Australia supported its own industry with contracts are long gone.."

To use a very hackneyed paraphrase, could reports of the death of Piaggio be greatly exaggerated? Gone for a lack of money just over 12 months ago, the Italian manufacturer has been granted a stay of execution thanks to a government order worth nearly €200 million. This is a great move by a government that understands the need to support local manufacture; such a contrast to the way aviation in Australia has been treated in the past 30 years. There once was a time when we built aeroplane for military use in this country. Mirages, Hornets, Canberras and even the mighty Lincoln – to this day still the largest aeroplane ever built in Australia. Now we build some parts and other bits and pieces, but the days when Australia supported its own industry with contracts are long gone. Attempts to get the government to look more closely at the value of the GA8 several years ago came to nothing, not helped by the apathy of MPs. With the bushfire disaster still plaguing Australia, I do have to wonder if a fleet of GA10s would have come in very handy in the relief efforts. So big kudos to the Italian government for saving Piaggio. Wouldn't it be nice to be able to say that to the Australian government one day.

The feedback on the ASAO MTOW proposal has the GA community abuzz as it seems a weight increase is now a fait accompli. However, there are some holes in the understanding of what is going to happen. I have encountered people who believe that they will now be able to carry 760 kg if the aircraft manufacturer says its OK. That is not the case if the aircraft was certified under LSA rules, which maintain the restriction of 600 kg. CASA's plan is to create a whole new category for the 760-kg aeroplanes, which means manufacturers would have to re-certify existing aircraft to the new category if it was originally an LSA. This, of course doesn't apply to home-builts and aircraft that are already certified to 760 kg or higher because they were never LSAs in the first place.

The loss of the Coulsen C130 Thor near Cooma this week is absolutely heart-wrenching and I suspect the condolences of the entire country go out to the families of those lost and all those that worked with the crew. It highlights the dangers of firebombing operations and how much the crews are putting on the line every time they run in. And it's not just the heavy tankers; the firespotting aircraft, lead-in aircraft and single-engine aerial tankers (SEAT) take the same risks as the crews of the large aircraft. This summer we have relied heavily on their dedication and professionalism like never before, and to lose the crew of Thor is devastating.

May your gauges always be in the green,

Hitch


Ref: http://www.australianflying.com.au/lates...ct-on-lsas

Quote:Comment: 

Peter • 7 hours ago
Interesting that CASA doesn't want to vary the LSA weight limit. After all, they varied the ASTM stall and maximum speed limits for Australian registered LSAs when the standards were first introduced. For reasons that were never properly explained.



In reply:

Ben  Peter • 5 hours ago
Not to mention the fact the FAA is currently working to increase their LSA MTOW limit to 3600lbs (1,636kg)!

MTF...P2  Tongue
Reply
#13

This week on Oz Flying:



 [Image: atsb_c310_the-lakes.jpg]

Fuel and Speed Issues identified in Cessna 310 Crash
30 January 2020
Comments 0 Comments

A Cessna 310 crash near The Lakes, NSW, in October 2017 was probably the result of a loss of control at low speed and power, according to the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) investigation report released this week.

VH-JMW was at the end of a round trip to Toowoomba, QLD, when it crashed just short of The Lakes airstrip. The pilot and one passenger died in the crash.


According to witnesses, the aircraft sounded more like a single-engine aircraft on approach and then the engine noise stopped before the aircraft "jerked suddenly, rolled to the left and descended rapidly to the ground."


The ATSB investigation identified that "during the final descent, the aircraft’s left engine was not producing power and the right engine was operating at low or intermittent power. The loss of engine power was probably the result of either insufficient fuel for the flight or an in-flight fuel management error.


"Despite that power loss, examination of the wreckage identified that the aircraft was configured for a powered approach, in a high‑drag configuration with the left and right engine propellers unfeathered, the landing gear down and the flaps partially extended. The low engine power combined with the high-drag configuration meant that the aircraft’s speed and altitude could not be maintained."


Although the ATSB was not able to determine the actual fuel state of the aeroplane when the crash occured, the report did note the absence of post-impact fire and a lack of damage to vegetation normally seen after a significant fuel spill.


"Following the loss of engine power a safe flying speed was not maintained," the ATSB found, "resulting in a loss of control and collision with terrain due to either an aerodynamic stall, asymmetric power effects or a combination of both."


ATSB Chief Commissioner Greg Hood said this accident highlighted how a loss in power requires different responses depending on whether an aircraft has single or multiple engines.


“However, regardless of the configuration, in order to maximise the survivability outcome it is imperative that the pilot retains control of the aircraft and maintains a safe airspeed,” Hood said


“Where the aircraft’s performance degrades to the point that continued safe flight is not possible, the pilot must shift their focus to conducting a forced landing.”


Hood also stressed that pilots should follow recognised fuel management practices in order to avoid fuel exhaustion or starvation.


The full report is on the 
ATSB website.







 [Image: Warnervale.jpg]

Warnervale Airport Act under Review
31 January 2020
Comments 0 Comments

The NSW government is calling for public submissions to its review of the Warnervale Airport Act 1996.


According to the NSW Department of Planning, Industry and Environment, the purpose of the review is to "reduce uncertainty created by the activation of the 'flight movement restriction' provisions of the Act."


That provision restricts movements at Warnervale Airport to no more than 88 take-offs and landings per day, which does not apply unless a new runway is built or an existing one extended, 
which Central Coast Council may have triggered when they did works on the runway in 2015.


NSW state MP for Terrigal Adam Crouch announced the review in October last year.


Infrastructure and planning expert Abigail Goldberg will conduct the review with Director of the Pacific Region for the Air Traffic Control Association and airport management expert Peter Fiegehen providing input from an aviation perspective.


"The review will look at the Airport’s operations under the Act and assess how the airport should be regulated into the future," the NSW government said. "It will consider a wide array of aspects, including its provision for flight movements and runway length, to how the airport is run and how well the Act interacts with other legislation.


"While the review will consider the impact of the Act, commercial decisions about the Airport are a matter for Central Coast Council as its owner."


Written submissions to the review will close on 28 February with the report due to be delivered to the Minister for Planning and Public Spaces in April.


Submissions can be made on the
 NSW Department of Planning, Industry and Environment website.





 [Image: tallawarra_power_station.jpg]

Tallawarra B can work: Energy Australia
30 January 2020
Comments 0 Comments

Energy Australia this week responded to concerns about the proposed Tallawarra B power station slated for the edge of Lake Illawarra by saying that they are seeking an engineering solution to the problem.

Tallawarra B has been the subject of some controversy as it stands within the circuit area of Shellharbour (Albion Park) Airport and a gas plume set to rise from the station has caused concern within general aviation circles.


Last year, CASA rejected a proposal to mitigate the plume by creating a danger area and last week AOPA Australia said that the Aeronautical Impact Assessement done by Energy Australia applied an inappropriate plume velocity for GA and recreational aircraft.

Energy Australia Tallawarra B Project Director Julian Turecek, himself a private pilot, said the company was still working on a solution that would pose no danger to GA.


"Every pilot knows there’s nothing more important than safety," Turacek told 
Australian Flying. "At Energy Australia, it’s our number one priority, too. We won’t do a project that poses unacceptable risks to the community or our people.


"We’re investigating an expansion to our existing Tallawarra power station, 5 km north-east of the Shellharbour Airport.  Since last year, when 
Australian Flying first posted on the issue, we have made important project amendments. In particular, we are no longer proposing a designated Danger Area for aviation; instead, we are applying innovative engineering to bring the plume velocity well below 6.1m/s at 1000 feet AGL.


Turecek also said that they were working within the CASA guidelines and it was not their position to decide what plume velocity was appropriate.


"We published a draft Aeronautical Impact Assessment in mid-December last year and we’ll build the feedback we get into the final report, which goes to CASA in mid-February.


"We’re applying guidance from the Advisory Circular on plume-rise assessments (AC139-v05) in relation to critical velocities, and leaving it to others and CASA to resolve the debate as to whether 6.1m/s is the correct standard for aircraft operating in and around the circuit. Our responsibility is to meet the standard the experts set.


"That said, we have considered potential impacts to RAAus aircraft on approach to RWY 16 as well as GA aircraft climbing out on RWY 34. Neither case requires overflight of the power station, and certainly not for take-off and landing approach.


"To make doubly sure there are no adverse impacts to aviation safety, we will make pilots aware when the plant is operating, by way of dynamic lighting on the stack.


Turecek said his company believed that a solution that suited both parties could be found.


"We’ve been working closely with the local aviation community and we will continue to do so, because we want the best–and safest–project possible.


"All the engineering and analysis we’ve done shows one thing: aviation and an expansion of the existing gas plant at Tallawarra can co-exist safely."





MTF...P2
Reply
#14

The Last Minute Hitch: 7 February 2020



– Steve Hitchen

Is Textron about to buy Bombardier's executive jet business? Reports from the USA seem pretty adamant, based on Bombardier's need to reduce debt and Textron being effectively the only company out there that could do with expanding into the top end of the market and is capable of taking it on. Cessna's Citation range have the Learjet 75 and the Challenger 350 covered, but above that Textron and Bombardier aren't in the same market. There is no Citation with a range beyond 3500 nm, which most of the  Challenger and Global range will cover with ease, so plane-for-plane it seems to make sense. It could, however, mean the end of the Learjet range; the Citation M2 and CJ3 regularly attract more customers than Bombardier's entry-level offering. Taking on the Challenger and Global designs would enable Textron to shape up to both Dassault and Gulfstream, and the bizjet market is one of the more bouyant at the moment, with shipments up 15.4% to Q3 2019. But Textron's expansion focus has been on turbo-props with cash committed to developing the Denali and SkyCourier, and adding the Bombardier range could be a distraction from their strategic direction.

Quote:"the divide created between Part 141 and 142 has caused confusion"

Yesterday CASA released some clarifying advice on what happens when a student pilot wants to change schools. This has been something that's been going on since flying schools were invented, and there have been many pilots–including me–that have swapped schools mid stream. There are many valid reasons why a student pilot would swap schools: relocation, moving to stay with an instructor who has moved, better aeroplanes, problems getting slots ... I won't go on. So why has CASA released this advice now? There are probably two main factors behind it: Part 61/141/142 and a growing nervousness about the stability and viability of some businesses. The inception of the 150-hour CPL and the divide created between Part 141 and 142 has caused confusion in this area that is probably the catalyst behind the advice released yesterday, and some of that confusion was shared between the flying school, the student and even representatives of the regulator. The problem of viability is not a new one either; training organisations have been rising and falling as long as anyone can remember. The nervousness is largely about those schools that want payment in advance or have all their HECS debt tied up with the school. In the advice, CASA has moved to distance themselves from the VET system, noting that completing the CPL syllabus does not complete a VET qualification, and that costs are completely out of their hands. CASA also mentions the need to train in recognised aeroplances. It's an interesting document. Give it a read.

Last week I wrote the words "Ultimately, air shows and fly-ins are only as good as the aviation community allows them to be" and this week I need to reinforce that. GA is back on the WOI agenda and Bright Events has left very few stops in the ground to encourage the GA community to get around them. As well as the expo, underwing camping has been organised and the TRA is due to be lifted at 4.00 pm, earlier than ever before. It's almost as if Bright Events has been listening to what GA people want. Two years ago, WOI's spin-off event Aviatex was not well supported and as a result it didn't go ahead. There can be no greater example of the truth in the words I wrote than that. We didn't support; we didn't get. With promixity to SydneyWollongongBathurstNewcastleCanberra and the greater part of the NSW coast, WOI is a very easy event to get to and not so far away from home for the trip back. With so many barriers to attendance broken down, WOI 2020 will be a good test case to see if GA really does want their own events.

May your gauges always be in the green,

Hitch



MTF...P2  Tongue

ps P2 OBS: Passing strange? This web link provided by Hitch: https://www.casa.gov.au/licences-and-cer...g-provider no longer takes you to the content to which he refers? Apparently the content has been archived after only 2 days??

Quote:Archived content

Please note that the content you are looking for has been archived.
  
Now where have I seen that before... Huh
Reply
#15

Hitch picks up on KC newsletter message -  Rolleyes

Reference:

(02-07-2020, 01:32 PM)Peetwo Wrote:  AMROBA 1st newsletter for the New Year and decade -  Wink

Volume 17 Issue 01 (January 2020)



[Image: AMROBA-120-757x1024.jpg]



Via Oz Flying:




 [Image: ken_cannane_amroba.jpg]

Put CASA Structure in the Act: Cannane
13 February 2020
Comments 0 Comments

Ken Cannane, Executive Director of the Aviation Maintenance Repair and Overhaul Business Association (AMROBA) has called for the structure of CASA to be enshrined in the Civil Aviation Act.

Speaking in the AMROBA January 2020 newsletter, Cannane said constant changes to the CASA structure were detrimental to aviation industry.


"For too long industry has had to watch CASA being restructured every time a new CEO is appointed resulting in a loss of experienced staff," Cannane states. "Australia has determined that CASA has specific functions under the Chicago Convention but does not specify these requirements in the 
Civil Aviation Act.


"AMROBA strongly recommends that CASA’s basic functions and structure should be clearly specified in the Civil Aviation Act. Australia has ICAO obligations, subject to Annexes of the Convention, that describes its structure. ICAO guidance for a Contracting State’s aviation regulator should be included in the 
Civil Aviation Act to stop the continual restructuring wasting millions of dollars.


CASA has had three Directors of Aviation Safety/CEO in the past 10 years, with the largest structural change coming in the short tenure of AVM (Retd) Mark Skidmore. Skidmore created a three-group structure which has evolved into a flatter five-group hierarchy under his predecessor, current DAS Shane Carmody. 
An internal "realignment" last year moved the General Aviation, Recreation and Sport office from Aviation Group to Stakeholder Engagement, which is largely the only major change under Carmody that directly impacts the aviation community.


"Over the decades, industry has had to re-adjust their contact with CASA and its predecessor many times as they continually re-structure internally as each Director of Aviation Safety/CEO of CASA is appointed," Cannane said. "Every time it happens, CASA loses experienced staff.


"This can be reduced by amendments to the 
Civil Aviation Act being more specific regarding CASA functions and responsibilities."


Shane Carmody was appointed to the DAS position permanently in 2017 and has two years to run on his five-year contract.




Also from Oz Flying today:

Quote: [Image: http%3A%2F%2Fyaffa-cdn.s3.amazonaws.com%...n_b777.jpg]

CASA expands Advisory Panel
14 February 2020
Comments Comments

CASA has added two more members to its Aviation Safety Advisory Panel (ASAP) to bring the total number to 13.

Virgin Australia Group Chief Operations Officer Stuart Aggs and Aviation Australia Technical Training Manager Mark Thompson will attend their first meeting on 27 February.


CASA CEO and Director of Aviation Safety Shane Carmody said the two new members would expand the field of expertise on the ASAP and align it with current areas of focus.


“It is important to ensure that the ASAP has a broad sector representation with a variety of experience and expertise from within the industry in order to consider aviation safety related matters and provide me with objective advice,” Carmody said.


“Since the Aviation Safety Advisory Panel was formed in 2017, the Panel has assisted CASA with developing and reviewing various regulations through its Technical Working Groups (TWGs).”


CASA formed ASAP in June 2017 after review findings concluded that CASA was limited in effectiveness by duplication and complexity.


[b]CASA Aviation Safety Advisory Panel[/b]
  • Prof. Pat Murray – Chair

  • Adrianne Fleming – Founder and Operations Manager, Tristar Aviation

  • John Gissing – Group Executive Associated Airlines and Services, Qantas

  • Dr Reece Clothier – President Australian Association for Unmanned Systems (AAUS) and Global Airspace Integration Senior Manager Boeing NeXt

  • Jim Davis – Chairman, RAAA

  • Michael Monck – President, RAAus

  • Ray Cronin – Founder and Managing Director of Kestrel, Chief Flying Instructor (Helicopter), current President of the Australian Helicopter Industry Association

  • Graeme Crawford – CASA Group Executive Manager Aviation

  • Rob Walker – CASA Executive Manager Stakeholder Engagement Division

  • Stuart Aggs – Virgin Australia Group Chief Operations Officer

  • Mark Thompson – Aviation Australia Technical Training Manager

Hmm...perhaps St Commode should consider adding KC to the WOFTAM ASAP list? Yeah right and pigs might fly... Dodgy 

MTF...P2  Tongue   
Reply
#16

AMROBA's Ken Cannane has put forward the novel idea of freezing CASA's structure in the Civil Aviation Act to prevent successive CEOs from making changes that cause an exodus of expertise from the regulator. Restructures often do cause a loss of good people in any organisation because they are often accompanied by redundancies that act as incentive for the most re-employable to head for the door. The current structure was put in place under the whirlwind tenure of Mark Skidmore, enabling Shane Carmody to make only small tweaks to evolve the management hierarchy ... so far. Consequently, the drain of expertise from CASA has been stemmed, but there's no guarantee that if Carmody doesn't stay in the role beyond his current contract that the flow won't start again. So, Cannane has a good point, but I don't think the solution is the right one. The Civil Aviation Act is legislation that has to go through parliament and all the points-scoring rigamorale visited upon it by politicians. Making the structure part of that process would rob the regulator of flexibility. You could argue that we don't want flexibility in the regulator because rigidity provides better stability that is often a key ingredient of investment. The flaw there is that the structure would have to be absolutely right from the get-go because making changes would mean introducing a bill to the house. We need to maintain flexibility within the regulator, but find a way to make sure it flexes in the right directions.

Quote: "..there aren't a lot of roadblocks to making this happen.."

And one great move to come out of CASA is the VFR ADS-B project. ADS-B has proven a boon to aviation at several levels with ATC able to issue proximity warnings using ADS-B paints. There has probably been very little question of the technology itself, but the cost of implementation has caused angst upon angst for about 12 years now. It was pretty obvious that, despite the benefits, those that weren't compelled by regulation to install ADS-B, i.e., VFR aircraft, weren't going to throw away good GNSS units and install ADS-B compliant ones if they didn't have to. The obvious solution was cheaper ADS-B systems that didn't have to comply with Technical Service Orders (TSO). CASA's feedback shows good support for the project within the industry, so it seems there aren't a lot of roadblocks to making this happen. As the cheaper systems will still be optional, those that don't want to play still don't need to plug in. The downsides to this are not immediately apparent, which is rare for most aviation regulatory change.

I enjoyed a visit this week to Southport Flying Club in SE QLD. This is a club based on an airport tucked away in a conservation reserve. The club has the lease on the airport and has created for themselves a very tidy little home in many ways. They have a good sealed runway and fantastic facilities that would be the envy of most of the clubs I visit. The airport provides a great community service with the local police and rescue helicopters making use of it when needed. Only the previous day I'd been at Caboolture on the other side of Brisbane, which is another club-run airport. It got me thinking about aero clubs in general and the vastly different structures they operate under. They range from wealthy for-profit clubs that may or may not have their own airports to small recreational enclaves with second-hand demountables for their club rooms. Some have been lucky enough to be handed ex-RAAF rooms abandoned after WWII and others have absolutely nothing at all except a name and an e-mail list. Many of these clubs, regardless of structure, often don't have their own futures in control because of the whim of a third party. It may be a belligerent council, a leaseholder that wants to jack up the rent or an airport owner looking to sell the land to ravenous developers. Together, clubs both great and small form a very important network that supports aviation and aviators right across [b]Australia[/b]; a network that is there not only for the members but also for aviators who may not be a member of any club and for the public in general. The more robust the network, the better off everyone is. Not every club can be a Southport or a RACWA or a Redcliffe, but they are every bit as vital to the network.

May your gauges always be in the green,

Hitch

And comment from Sandy:

Quote:Sandy Reith  17 hours ago

Aero clubs are a great contributor to Aussie GA as Hitch says, in so many words. Being local, like mine, in a small country town there’s a camaraderie and knowledge to be passed on to a younger generation of budding pilots.

All good so far, just one great big fat fly in the ointment. Due to CASA’s control freakery dozens, if not hundreds, of small clubs have lost their flying schools. Unlike the USA, they cannot employ the independent instructor and hence we are not attracting young people.
On top of that the great expenses, such ASICs and extraordinary costs to sit examinations (at very limited venues). When I was running my flying school my students could sit their exams at no cost in house at my airport. Now their exams cost $hundreds and only available at very limited venues.

The vast majority of aero clubs are either a distant memory, or like mine, ticking off the numbers as the oldest fade away. The lucky few that have managed the Herculean task, and massive expense, of negotiating Part 141/142 are to be congratulated, but will find that there’s few instructors left to keep their schools operational.

MTF...P2  Tongue
Reply
#17

A straw – quick; grasp it. (Cranky now.)

“AMROBA's Ken Cannane has put forward the novel idea of freezing CASA's structure in the Civil Aviation Act to prevent successive CEOs from making changes that cause an exodus of expertise from the regulator.

Ken is, as usual spot on – in principal. Reality of course is a world away from logic and know-how. The ‘restructures’ are part of the great bluff and a great asset for muddying the waters. They also ‘buy time’. How many ministers and Senate inquiry have we seen now followed by a ‘re-structure’? More promises, more alignment and much more ‘front of house activity’. Lots and lots is the correct answer. CASA cannot, nor will not, under the existing system attract the ‘right stuff’. No one in the ‘iron ring’ will tolerate it.

“Restructures often do cause a loss of good people in any organisation because they are often accompanied by redundancies that act as incentive for the most re-employable to head for the door.

There are, believe it or not, some who would love to work for CASA, to help improve and to be part of building a vibrant aviation industry.

“The current structure was put in place under the whirlwind tenure of Mark Skidmore, enabling Shane Carmody to make only small tweaks to evolve the management hierarchy ... so far.

Yep – and look at what he hired. Many, and I mean a lot, believe Skidmore simply realised he was on a hiding to nothing – and simply walked away. It was a honourable thing to do. IMO he actually believed he had a chance of getting things sorted out – until he realised it was mission impossible. The problem is both at the coal face and in the top echelon; big job for one man without a truck load of ministerial support. Except the ministers ‘advisors’ play for the opposition. Skidmore could, with just a little support have rung the changes. Alas….

“Consequently, the drain of expertise from CASA has been stemmed,

What ducking expertise? The type that wrote Part 61 – the mob which brought 141/142 on line? Or would you like to dig down into the types who went after Buckley or several other ‘honest’ operators and closed ‘em down. FDS. What has been kept is about a low as can be politically supported. There is little in the way of ‘operational’ knowledge’ – take Crawford as an example – what, in the seven hells, would he know about ‘aviation operations’?  Sweet fuck all is the answer. There’s a lot like him; poncing about, calling themselves ‘expert’ and loading their ‘ideas’ onto the industry – Weeks for example – he what wrote Part 61. Could not complete a charter in daylight with a tailwind, let alone run a charter outfit – and yet ……….

“but there's no guarantee that if Carmody doesn't stay in the role beyond his current contract that the flow won't start again.”

Bollocks Hitch. Those as can tolerate St. Commode want to be there; the rest will depart the fix. Find me an operational ‘senior’ pilot’ – management role – who’d leave industry to work in St Commodes sheltered work shop. Go on – write me a list. Most of the ‘men’ in aviation would deck the saint, - given the chance – but as he is a protected species – Aye well, the dream lives on.

“So, Cannane has a good point, but I don't think the solution is the right one. (Based on your expertise? Which is what, exactly?

The Civil Aviation Act is legislation that has to go through parliament and all the points-scoring rigmarole visited upon it by politicians. Making the structure part of that process would rob the regulator of flexibility.

There is the rub. They have far too much ‘flexibility’. Totally a law unto themselves, without any hope of control, in any way, shape or form being exercised at the moment. Beyond the law – so says the Australian court (Butson). Until CASA can be held ‘accountable and responsible’ for the travesties they inflict, noting will improve.

“You could argue that we don't want flexibility in the regulator because rigidity provides better stability that is often a key ingredient of investment.

Horse-Pooh. Utter crap. Investment is not silly – it is a school which does not only its homework and due diligence it also reads the tea leaves. An AOC is deemed a ‘liability’ – the time and money it takes to establish an operation far beyond any reasonable investment reality or expectation.

Here’s a dare. I dare Oz Flying to publish a ‘factual’ (no bullshit) report on the Falcon Air operation. Time, trouble, money, approvals etc. Even a burst on Check list’ approval would do. Never happen, my bet is safe. Falcon dare not speak and you would dare not print if the truth was ever told. Investment? Dream on.

"The flaw there is that the structure would have to be absolutely right from the get-go because making changes would mean introducing a bill to the house. We need to maintain flexibility within the regulator, but find a way to make sure it flexes in the right directions.

Hitch; (mate) do yourself a favour. Start at the beginning at bring an AOC on line. Try it. Or, if that’s too rich for your blood, try to get a new operation for an existing approved. You could try and get a factory check-list approved in less tan a six month and $30,000 bucks.

I don’t mind a bit of twaddle every now and then - tongue in cheek stuff. But: really you cannot, in this last epistle - be serious.

Aye well, mind how you go now. The pathway to integrity is both steep and slippery.

Toot – toot.
Reply
#18

Quote of the year"

The inscrutable Aroa:

"You can have a fat and costly CAsA, or a viable GA industry... but not both"
Reply
#19

The Last Minute Hitch: 21 February 2020

– Steve Hitchen

This weeks disaster near Mangalore will prove a watershed moment in general aviation in Australia. Four people died in immensely tragic circumstances that, had you asked me a week ago, I would have said was impossible. Procedures and systems in place somehow failed to prevent two aircraft carrying very experienced Grade 1 instructors from coming together outside the circuit area of an airport. Despite the input of many self-appointed experts, we really have very little idea about what unfolded, except to say that trusted safeguards failed to keep four people safe. It's the inevitable examination of those safeguards that I suspect will result in some changes to aviation in Australia. Until the ATSB releases its preliminary findings in a few weeks time, we know only that the world has lost some very good people and that simply shouldn't have happened.

Quote:there are pillars in place to shore up the success of this venture

It's great news that someone is planning to build electric Pipistrels in Australia. This is the sort of innovative thinking and entreprenurial courage that general aviation needs. It will bring jobs to South Australia and develop the industry's understand of electric propulsion. All of that is fantastic, but nothing succeeds in business without demand. The Alpha Electro is limited to the training market only, given that it has a range of 75 nm and an endurance of 60 mins plus the mandated 30-minute reserve. It also has a useful load of only 182 kg, so there's not a lot there for someone wanting to do cross-country work. It's a low-cost training solution, but will it be adopted in the numbers needed to make this venture a success? Recreational training is the prime market for the Alpha Electro; not such a bad hunting ground when you consider the growth rate in this area compared to private GA. So there are pillars in place to shore up the success of this venture, provided the industry is ready to adopt the technology. In business, timing can be everything, and obviously Eyre to There believes the time is now for wide-spread electric propulsion.

CASA's safety notice warning people not to stall Bristell LSAs should have taken no-one by surprise. The regulator has been focusing on stall and spin characteristics a bit of late in the lee of the ATSB findings on a DA40 crash in Queensland. Two accidents in Victoria involving Bristells appear to have been the result of failure to recover from spins. Add to that a couple of crashes overseas and that's more than enough to get CASA out of their chairs. What did surprise me is that they didn't bring out the truncheons on the Bristell the way they have for many other aircraft issues. Not that I'm complaining; so far the response has been well measured. However, CASA's attitude will probably turn darker if the manufacturer is unable to come up with evidence of proper spin testing on the design. As to whether or not there is a real issue is impossible to evaluate at the moment, given the number of times Bristells have been stalled without ending up in the mud. The story isn't over, so let's not skip to the last page too soon.

The Australian Light Aircraft Championships are on in Taree in May. Held in conjunction with the Royal Federation of Aero Clubs Australia (RFACA) training conference, the ALACs are a great fun gathering of aviators with a bit of friendly competition thrown in. It's all on this year 1-3 May and includes forced and spot landing, streamer cutting, aerobatics and formation flying. If you think your crew is up to the standard needed to be ALACs champions, get your nominations in before all the accommodation is sold out. Have a look at the RFACA website and clear some space in the club trophy cabinet.

Our latest print issue is now out. Australian Flying March-April 2020 is a wide variety of topics and interesting stuff that we've packaged together for you in one magazine. Highlighting the features is Part One of Mike Smith's epic journey from Russia to Australia in his new amphibian, a close look at what it takes to be a HEMS pilot and a Cirrus TRAC flight test. Thanks to Mike Smith, Jock Folan, Murray Gerraty, Jon Clements and Avalon Approach all of whom worked together to get us one of the great cover shots of the past 10 years. If you haven't already got this issue, what are you waiting for?

May your gauges always be in the green,

Hitch
Reply
#20

(02-22-2020, 08:50 AM)Peetwo Wrote:  The Last Minute Hitch: 21 February 2020

– Steve Hitchen

This weeks disaster near Mangalore will prove a watershed moment in general aviation in Australia. Four people died in immensely tragic circumstances that, had you asked me a week ago, I would have said was impossible. Procedures and systems in place somehow failed to prevent two aircraft carrying very experienced Grade 1 instructors from coming together outside the circuit area of an airport. Despite the input of many self-appointed experts, we really have very little idea about what unfolded, except to say that trusted safeguards failed to keep four people safe. It's the inevitable examination of those safeguards that I suspect will result in some changes to aviation in Australia. Until the ATSB releases its preliminary findings in a few weeks time, we know only that the world has lost some very good people and that simply shouldn't have happened.

Quote:there are pillars in place to shore up the success of this venture

It's great news that someone is planning to build electric Pipistrels in Australia. This is the sort of innovative thinking and entreprenurial courage that general aviation needs. It will bring jobs to South Australia and develop the industry's understand of electric propulsion. All of that is fantastic, but nothing succeeds in business without demand. The Alpha Electro is limited to the training market only, given that it has a range of 75 nm and an endurance of 60 mins plus the mandated 30-minute reserve. It also has a useful load of only 182 kg, so there's not a lot there for someone wanting to do cross-country work. It's a low-cost training solution, but will it be adopted in the numbers needed to make this venture a success? Recreational training is the prime market for the Alpha Electro; not such a bad hunting ground when you consider the growth rate in this area compared to private GA. So there are pillars in place to shore up the success of this venture, provided the industry is ready to adopt the technology. In business, timing can be everything, and obviously Eyre to There believes the time is now for wide-spread electric propulsion.

CASA's safety notice warning people not to stall Bristell LSAs should have taken no-one by surprise. The regulator has been focusing on stall and spin characteristics a bit of late in the lee of the ATSB findings on a DA40 crash in Queensland. Two accidents in Victoria involving Bristells appear to have been the result of failure to recover from spins. Add to that a couple of crashes overseas and that's more than enough to get CASA out of their chairs. What did surprise me is that they didn't bring out the truncheons on the Bristell the way they have for many other aircraft issues. Not that I'm complaining; so far the response has been well measured. However, CASA's attitude will probably turn darker if the manufacturer is unable to come up with evidence of proper spin testing on the design. As to whether or not there is a real issue is impossible to evaluate at the moment, given the number of times Bristells have been stalled without ending up in the mud. The story isn't over, so let's not skip to the last page too soon.

The Australian Light Aircraft Championships are on in Taree in May. Held in conjunction with the Royal Federation of Aero Clubs Australia (RFACA) training conference, the ALACs are a great fun gathering of aviators with a bit of friendly competition thrown in. It's all on this year 1-3 May and includes forced and spot landing, streamer cutting, aerobatics and formation flying. If you think your crew is up to the standard needed to be ALACs champions, get your nominations in before all the accommodation is sold out. Have a look at the RFACA website and clear some space in the club trophy cabinet.

Our latest print issue is now out. Australian Flying March-April 2020 is a wide variety of topics and interesting stuff that we've packaged together for you in one magazine. Highlighting the features is Part One of Mike Smith's epic journey from Russia to Australia in his new amphibian, a close look at what it takes to be a HEMS pilot and a Cirrus TRAC flight test. Thanks to Mike Smith, Jock Folan, Murray Gerraty, Jon Clements and Avalon Approach all of whom worked together to get us one of the great cover shots of the past 10 years. If you haven't already got this issue, what are you waiting for?

May your gauges always be in the green,

Hitch

Comments in reply... Wink



Quote:Martin Hone  3 days ago

Maybe I'm just old fashioned, but if someone does their ab-initio training in an electric aircraft, does that mean they can then only fly electric ?




In reply:

Sandy Reith  Martin Hone  2 days ago

Martin, our world class regulator is standing by with a whole new suite of regulations to deal with this colossal problem that only they, the experts, can solve. After all, having ‘finished’ writing the rules after thirty two years and come up with the model that all nations are trying to emulate, they’ve had many months to accomplish this new task. Firstly of course there’s all the new certification stages of the aircraft itself. Then a new suite of maintenance operations and the training regimes for LAMES and a bunch of permissions for different categories, fees have not yet been decided because the KPI designators for senior management’s bonuses are not yet agreed. New LAME qualifications will be ReVolting 1 for charging certification, ReVolting 2, changing batteries, ReV 3 enabling re-winds and current AD supervision.

Turning to the pilot licence area, no problem, a new sixteen part syllabus is almost ready, covering theory for SPL, RPL, PPL, CPL, and ATPL with addendums for current instructors, ATC personnel and AROs. It starts with new parts to engines, electrical theory and principles, electric motors etc plus effects of altitude (resistance) and atmospherics (lightning, icing, rain, heat etc). Its envisaged that all existing licence holders to take courses to their appropriate levels, fees and examination venues will be notified.

Happy flying.




Martin Hone  Sandy Reith  2 days ago

OMG



David J Pilkington  Martin Hone  2 days ago

“endurance of 60 mins plus the mandated 30-minute reserve” so for most flights they will have to call “minimum fuel” and approaching an hour flight they must declare “mayday fuel”
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)