IF.
No, not the Kipling kind, although, IMO, it holds much relevance to this days troubles, but that of the 'fiscal' kind, i.e. the money.
This last little 'pandemic' exercise has, in no small way, placed the national economy (i.e. us) is some pretty deep debt. When money is 'tight' sensible folk look for ways to reduce costs, outgoings and apply the rule of is it nice to have, need to have or must have and budget accordingly.
I wonder, will the government consider saving the outrageous cost of maintaining the current CASA and the lunatic system CASA insists we must have; despite it being in direct conflict with world best practice and an unnecessary burden not only on industry, but to the tax payer.
It is essential that aviation recover from the blight; quickly and positively. The first and possibly the most damaging element which will slow the recovery will be the 'regulations'. The cost to the nation of writing, rewriting and providing hundreds of pages 'explaining' the regulation is staggering. The cost to industry of 'compliance' is not calculated, but any analysis of 'man-hours' related to drafting manuals which 'demonstrate' on paper compliance would define an expense which could be avoided.
Another saving could be made by simply coming into compliance with international 'gold standard' i.e. ICAO compliance. The cost of drafting, promulgation and maintaining the registered differences is an unrequited impost, serves no practical purpose and does nothing to improve operational costs or safety. It represents one of the 'great wastes' of public money.
Mark Newton's analysis - HERE - brings into focus some of the 'great waste' very well indeed. But I wonder, what if our DPM had a coffee with the Qantas top brass and asked but one question, how fast we would see great changes to the administration of aviation happen. "Why did you move maintenance 'off shore'?"
Australian aviation could possibly hobble along for another few years under the present regime; diminishing at the current rate of attrition, loosing aerodromes or trapped in those without fuel or maintenance facilities; as the CASA budget and levy increases; but it must, sooner or later give up the ghost. However, if Australia joined with most of the aviation nations and used the FAR, it could once again blossom into a useful, productive tax paying industry.
There's is much support for that transition - and no appetite, and even less enthusiasm for continuing along the current regulatory pathway - a failed, expensive, counterproductive system clearly demonstrated.
Toot - toot
No, not the Kipling kind, although, IMO, it holds much relevance to this days troubles, but that of the 'fiscal' kind, i.e. the money.
This last little 'pandemic' exercise has, in no small way, placed the national economy (i.e. us) is some pretty deep debt. When money is 'tight' sensible folk look for ways to reduce costs, outgoings and apply the rule of is it nice to have, need to have or must have and budget accordingly.
I wonder, will the government consider saving the outrageous cost of maintaining the current CASA and the lunatic system CASA insists we must have; despite it being in direct conflict with world best practice and an unnecessary burden not only on industry, but to the tax payer.
It is essential that aviation recover from the blight; quickly and positively. The first and possibly the most damaging element which will slow the recovery will be the 'regulations'. The cost to the nation of writing, rewriting and providing hundreds of pages 'explaining' the regulation is staggering. The cost to industry of 'compliance' is not calculated, but any analysis of 'man-hours' related to drafting manuals which 'demonstrate' on paper compliance would define an expense which could be avoided.
Another saving could be made by simply coming into compliance with international 'gold standard' i.e. ICAO compliance. The cost of drafting, promulgation and maintaining the registered differences is an unrequited impost, serves no practical purpose and does nothing to improve operational costs or safety. It represents one of the 'great wastes' of public money.
Mark Newton's analysis - HERE - brings into focus some of the 'great waste' very well indeed. But I wonder, what if our DPM had a coffee with the Qantas top brass and asked but one question, how fast we would see great changes to the administration of aviation happen. "Why did you move maintenance 'off shore'?"
Australian aviation could possibly hobble along for another few years under the present regime; diminishing at the current rate of attrition, loosing aerodromes or trapped in those without fuel or maintenance facilities; as the CASA budget and levy increases; but it must, sooner or later give up the ghost. However, if Australia joined with most of the aviation nations and used the FAR, it could once again blossom into a useful, productive tax paying industry.
There's is much support for that transition - and no appetite, and even less enthusiasm for continuing along the current regulatory pathway - a failed, expensive, counterproductive system clearly demonstrated.
Toot - toot