Of the Devil and the details. (Part 2).
Under Standing Order 25 (2) (a), the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee will inquire into and report on the current state of Australia's general aviation industry, with particular reference to aviation in rural, regional and remote Australia. Etc.
(b) CASA's processes and functions, including:
(i) its maintenance of an efficient and sustainable Australian aviation industry, including viable general aviation and training sectors;
Hatch - “CASA is facing a $3.4 million budget shortfall this financial year, amid uncertainty around domestic aviation fuel excise revenue. Revenue from the 3.5¢-a-litre excise tax has been flat because” - etc……….
Uhmmm? Let me guess – Gee Whiz, that’s a tough one though ain’t it? Less flying, ergo less fuel purchased; therefore less revenue from a tax which should have been repealed years ago – that about sums it up. I begs the question, why is there less flying?
(i) [“its] maintenance of an efficient and sustainable Australian aviation industry”
Strange concept: CASA do not ‘maintain’ the aviation industry; it is up to the business operator to be efficient and sustain the business – sod all to do with CASA. The only input CASA should have (in theory) is providing a rule set and ensuring compliance within the business. There’s the rub. To simplify the complex problem of bad rules, applied and manipulated to suit, an anecdote may help. The ‘Pie in Sky’ company, being smart, routinely call in an independent auditor to make certain that their contractual and regulatory requirements are met. At audit end, there will be a meeting, recommendations are made, discussed and action taken to meet any short fall or oversight. Not a problem; as it benefits the business. A ‘bad’ area is identified, rectified and the changes applied. Big tick and smiles all around. This is not the case when the CASA team lob in; far from it. Some of the end results from CASA subjective, even agenda driven audit have been horrendous, counter productive, pointless and; in some cases, downright dangerous, not to mention vindictive. We have three documented cases where ‘evidence’ and result have been falsified and manipulated; one of these will be made a formal, public submission to the Senate committee. It is time that CASA were exposed for what they really are.
(ii) the efficacy of its engagement with the aviation sector, including via public consultation; and
‘Engagement’ is not a word I’d use to define the relationship between industry and regulator; it implies a two way street – not true. CASA talk – you listen, nod and get away as fast and as far as possible. In any company office, the sighs of relief and cussing after CASA have left are a routine result of any ‘engagement’ with CASA. Even making a call to CASA is a trial of will and a test of patience; almost everyone has a tale of pure frustration to add to the growing heap. It is a battle, every time – forbearance, time and money must be available before any form of ‘engagement’ with CASA – a ‘brave pill’ taken beforehand greatly assists.
‘Public consultation’ is a standing joke. There is no such animal. There is carefully selected elements of industry which may sit in the hallowed ‘meetings’. Those of a similar mind-set always welcome, it reduces the chance of resistance to whatever CASA have decided the outcome will be – very cosy. Then there is the other type of ‘consultation’ done in private where hints whispered and promises are made which ensure division; providing a perfect platform for saying the GA industry is splintered and in disarray; can’t even agree on the type of tea to be served; thus CASA simply enforce whatever they want, claiming to be acting in the 'best interest of industry’.
(iii) its ability to broaden accessibility to regional aviation across Australia, considering the associated benefits of an expanded aviation sector; and
This is a ‘doozy’. The finance world considers investment in aviation ‘high risk’ – the returns expected on monies invested are onerous, when other investments return the equivalent with much less risk. Accountants and such regard any form of Air Operator Certificate (AOC) as a liability, not an asset these day. If you can obtain one that is. Years ago, It was possible for a couple of mates to get together, pool resources and begin an air service of some description, this is basically how operations like Rex, began – Hazelton (Cudal) started out crop dusting and grew into a regional airline; Kendell in Wagga same-same; there are many others. They all ‘grew’ through there own abilities and determination; but, they all worked through ‘the department’ of the day. It was never a stroll in the park, but it was achievable and, importantly, affordable. ‘Compliance’ was achieved through a sensible, practical process, overseen by a ‘practical’ regulator. This is so far removed from the present day system as to be almost a faery tale. But, back in the day, you could with perseverance, set up an operating company and grow it. I know of one operator who took two years and spent almost a quarter million dollars to achieve what is, in essence, a simple AOC. Flight schools the same; almost every country town had a facility where, those who wanted to, could learn to fly – there is barely an aircraft a week landing at these aerodromes now.
(iv) any related matters.
Oh, there’s plenty of those to go around – but why bother. We all know where the problem lays; a decent minister would sort it out and claim a resounding success – but no, we have to wait two years for actions which may or may not be of benefit. Action is needed – NOW not after another inquiry which will ‘discover’ the same ‘facts’ return the same results and be treated exactly the same as the previous ‘inquiry’.
You do realise that had a DAS who knew what he was about been appointed; non of the current situation would be happening; had the minister an advisor and DAS with the first clue, he’d be famous as the man who saved this nation’s aviation industry. Someone tell the fool – please: save us the expense, delay and mountainous piles of pony-pooh another inquiry would produce.
Under Standing Order 25 (2) (a), the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee will inquire into and report on the current state of Australia's general aviation industry, with particular reference to aviation in rural, regional and remote Australia. Etc.
(b) CASA's processes and functions, including:
(i) its maintenance of an efficient and sustainable Australian aviation industry, including viable general aviation and training sectors;
Hatch - “CASA is facing a $3.4 million budget shortfall this financial year, amid uncertainty around domestic aviation fuel excise revenue. Revenue from the 3.5¢-a-litre excise tax has been flat because” - etc……….
Uhmmm? Let me guess – Gee Whiz, that’s a tough one though ain’t it? Less flying, ergo less fuel purchased; therefore less revenue from a tax which should have been repealed years ago – that about sums it up. I begs the question, why is there less flying?
(i) [“its] maintenance of an efficient and sustainable Australian aviation industry”
Strange concept: CASA do not ‘maintain’ the aviation industry; it is up to the business operator to be efficient and sustain the business – sod all to do with CASA. The only input CASA should have (in theory) is providing a rule set and ensuring compliance within the business. There’s the rub. To simplify the complex problem of bad rules, applied and manipulated to suit, an anecdote may help. The ‘Pie in Sky’ company, being smart, routinely call in an independent auditor to make certain that their contractual and regulatory requirements are met. At audit end, there will be a meeting, recommendations are made, discussed and action taken to meet any short fall or oversight. Not a problem; as it benefits the business. A ‘bad’ area is identified, rectified and the changes applied. Big tick and smiles all around. This is not the case when the CASA team lob in; far from it. Some of the end results from CASA subjective, even agenda driven audit have been horrendous, counter productive, pointless and; in some cases, downright dangerous, not to mention vindictive. We have three documented cases where ‘evidence’ and result have been falsified and manipulated; one of these will be made a formal, public submission to the Senate committee. It is time that CASA were exposed for what they really are.
(ii) the efficacy of its engagement with the aviation sector, including via public consultation; and
‘Engagement’ is not a word I’d use to define the relationship between industry and regulator; it implies a two way street – not true. CASA talk – you listen, nod and get away as fast and as far as possible. In any company office, the sighs of relief and cussing after CASA have left are a routine result of any ‘engagement’ with CASA. Even making a call to CASA is a trial of will and a test of patience; almost everyone has a tale of pure frustration to add to the growing heap. It is a battle, every time – forbearance, time and money must be available before any form of ‘engagement’ with CASA – a ‘brave pill’ taken beforehand greatly assists.
‘Public consultation’ is a standing joke. There is no such animal. There is carefully selected elements of industry which may sit in the hallowed ‘meetings’. Those of a similar mind-set always welcome, it reduces the chance of resistance to whatever CASA have decided the outcome will be – very cosy. Then there is the other type of ‘consultation’ done in private where hints whispered and promises are made which ensure division; providing a perfect platform for saying the GA industry is splintered and in disarray; can’t even agree on the type of tea to be served; thus CASA simply enforce whatever they want, claiming to be acting in the 'best interest of industry’.
(iii) its ability to broaden accessibility to regional aviation across Australia, considering the associated benefits of an expanded aviation sector; and
This is a ‘doozy’. The finance world considers investment in aviation ‘high risk’ – the returns expected on monies invested are onerous, when other investments return the equivalent with much less risk. Accountants and such regard any form of Air Operator Certificate (AOC) as a liability, not an asset these day. If you can obtain one that is. Years ago, It was possible for a couple of mates to get together, pool resources and begin an air service of some description, this is basically how operations like Rex, began – Hazelton (Cudal) started out crop dusting and grew into a regional airline; Kendell in Wagga same-same; there are many others. They all ‘grew’ through there own abilities and determination; but, they all worked through ‘the department’ of the day. It was never a stroll in the park, but it was achievable and, importantly, affordable. ‘Compliance’ was achieved through a sensible, practical process, overseen by a ‘practical’ regulator. This is so far removed from the present day system as to be almost a faery tale. But, back in the day, you could with perseverance, set up an operating company and grow it. I know of one operator who took two years and spent almost a quarter million dollars to achieve what is, in essence, a simple AOC. Flight schools the same; almost every country town had a facility where, those who wanted to, could learn to fly – there is barely an aircraft a week landing at these aerodromes now.
(iv) any related matters.
Oh, there’s plenty of those to go around – but why bother. We all know where the problem lays; a decent minister would sort it out and claim a resounding success – but no, we have to wait two years for actions which may or may not be of benefit. Action is needed – NOW not after another inquiry which will ‘discover’ the same ‘facts’ return the same results and be treated exactly the same as the previous ‘inquiry’.
You do realise that had a DAS who knew what he was about been appointed; non of the current situation would be happening; had the minister an advisor and DAS with the first clue, he’d be famous as the man who saved this nation’s aviation industry. Someone tell the fool – please: save us the expense, delay and mountainous piles of pony-pooh another inquiry would produce.