[Peetwo]

For those that give a RRAT's arse -   

If anyone is remotely interested? - it looks like afternoon tea & biccys followed by beer, nuts and possibly a Fort Fumble BBQ for this year's Budget Estimates...  

2018–19 Budget estimates
Monday, 21 May 2018
Infrastructure and Regional Development
Tuesday, 22 May 2018
Infrastructure and Regional Development (continued)
Wednesday, 23 May 2018
Agriculture and Water Resources
Thursday, 24 May 2018
Agriculture and Water Resources (continued)
 Program for 21 to 24 May 2018 (PDF 71KB)

---

I also note that the nearly a month overdue Additional Estimates AQON have finally arrived -    (see HERE.)     

Now if you ever wanted a clearer example of how much CASA are still  totally out of touch with all reality, a 'Big R-egulator' and 'law unto themselves', go no further than some of the answers to Senator Fraser Anning's  QON...  :

Senator Fraser Anning asked:

The AOPA Australia across the past 2 years has published a range of important data (from government sources, including CASA, BITRE and others) that demonstrates that Australian general aviation is in serious decline.

Whilst the broader Australian economy has enjoyed 103 quarters of continuous growth, Australia’s general aviation industry has experienced;
• 34% decline in pilot numbers over the past 10 years
• 35% decline in avgas sales over the past 10 years
• 18% decline in aircraft hours flown over the past 5 years
• 20% decline in serviceable aircraft for the past 12 months
• 15% decline in maintenance and repair organisations in the past 12 months

The 2015 BITRE report clearly identifies that the vast majority of commercial activities for general aviation are in decline, with pilot training, charter, test, ferry, survey, photography and aerial work all recording losses.

Furthermore;
The Australian newspaper ran the following news articles between April 2016 and December 2017

• 7th April 2016 Red tape crushing general aviation
• 21st April 2016 soaring rents pushing general aviation to the brink
• 16th August 2016 CASA concedes: Our red tape stifles industry
• 3rd September 2016 Airport privatisation and CASA rules hurting businesses
• 27th October 2016 General aviation review may pull sector out of dive
• 13th December 2016 Allianz to shut local aviation insurance unit
• 21st February 2017 Calls for urgent airport safety review
• 1st March 2017 Government grapples with general aviation decline
• 2nd June 2017 Over-regulation killing aviation
• 13th July 2017 AOPA tips general aviation crisis
• 2nd August 2017 General aviation sector faces ruin
• 22nd December 2017 China swoops on flight schools to solve pilot shortage
• 27th December 2017 foreign pilots given two-year visas to cover Australia’s pilot shortage
• 27th December 2017 need to cut red tape, costs to restore pilot training

Question: On 16th August 2017, CASA conceded that general aviation was in fact in decline (as published by the Australian). Given that just about all of AOPA Australia’s predictions and warnings across the past two years have been balanced and accurate, please explain as to why AOPA has not been engaged directly on your
ASAP panel?

Answer:

The General Aviation (GA) Study released in December 2017 found that GA is a diverse sector covering a range of manned and unmanned flying activity from flying training, mustering, firefighting and emergency services, search and rescue, aerial surveying and photography, towing and private flying.

The Study did indicate that total manned GA activity in Australia has been decreasing but not all parts of GA have been affected and that GA activity internationally from available data covering the USA, UK, Canada and New Zealand also has been declining or is static.

---

Senator Fraser Anning asked:

The AOPA Australia has released data (based on BITRE reports) that shows that in 2002, just 7% of the GA fleet was inactive, and however, by 2015 this number has increased to 23% or 2,930 aircraft. Does this increase from 7% to 23% indicate there is a problem in GA?

Answer:

The BITRE General Aviation (GA) Study actually indicates approximately 17 per cent of the VH-registered GA fleet were not flying in 2002 (not 7 per cent), and a steady growth of registered aircraft since 1992 (see Figure 1.4 on page 9 of the study).

CASA acknowledges the findings of the GA study show changes in composition of the GA fleet and activity over the past few decades. For example GA sector flying hours, including those of non VH-registered aircraft, illustrate the emergence of the recreational sector (of over 3,000 non VH-registered aircraft) which has contributed to increased overall activity for the GA sector (taken as a whole) since 1980.

The study does show that since 2010, total manned GA activity in Australia has been decreasing, but it also shows that not all parts of GA have seen reduced flying activity e.g. aerial mustering and search and rescue activity.

It is also the case that available data covering the USA, UK, Canada and New Zealand, shows that GA activity globally has been declining or is static.

Importantly the study also notes that broader economic and demographic factors affect GA activity.

---

Senator Fraser Anning asked:

What is the difference between a GA private pilot and a RAAus recreational pilot? Furthermore, could you explain the risk difference between the two, given that both pilots can fly the same aircraft, from the same airport, with a passenger onboard?

Has CASA undertaken a study or risk assessment that details its concerns regarding the above? Has there been a report? If so, could you please on notice provide that report.

Answer:

The key differences between a private pilot licensed under Part 61 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations and a pilot operating under a RA-Aus Recreational Pilot Certificate is that the private pilot:

(a) completes more extensive training;
(b) undergoes a higher order aeronautical knowledge examination;
© undertakes a more comprehensive skills and practical knowledge flight assessment;
(d) has greater responsibilities, such as carrying more passengers; and
(e) has broader operational privileges, such as conducting operations outside of Australia and operating more complex types of aircraft

The additional knowledge, examination, practical training and assessments are applied to mitigate the higher risk associated with the broader operational scope and privileges of the private pilot licence.

While in certain circumstances both pilots may be able to fly the same type of aircraft, the RA-Aus registered aircraft is not required to meet the same airworthiness standards as an Australian Registered Aircraft (i.e. a CASA registered aircraft). An RA-Aus pilot Certificate holder may only fly in an RA-Aus registered aircraft (limited to two seat aircraft up to 600kg or the type certificate maximum take-off weight, whichever is less).

While CASA undertakes risk assessments (including detailed examinations of the risk profiles of particular areas of the aviation industry) in light of the current operational control measures in place, CASA has no concerns regarding the privileges of RA-Aus pilot certificate holders and there is no recent risk assessment of this area.

---

Senator Fraser Anning asked:

Given that the UK and the USA based their private pilot medicals on a private driver’s license standard, why have you based the Australian GA license on a commercial driver’s standard, noting that the RAAus recreational pilot certificate is based on a private driver standard?

Could you please explain how CASA can deem a GA private pilot unfit for flight, then these same pilots move across to RAAus where they can continue to fly on a driver’s license medical in the same aircraft carrying a passenger?

Answer:

CASA has decided to use the Austroads commercial driving standard, which includes a basic examination of certain physiological parameters (such as sight and hearing), as this standard includes factors that are relevant to aviation and is more appropriate for the risk profile related to what types of aircraft and airspace operations are permitted for a ‘GA’ licence holder.

The different licence standards for a CASA-regulated Private Pilot Licence and Recreational Pilot (sometimes referred to as ‘GA’) vis-à-vis an RA-Aus pilot licence, reflects that GA licence holders are permitted to fly all types of aircraft and operate in all airspace environments, whereas RA-Aus pilot licence holders are limited to operating an aircraft weight of a maximum of 600kg or less, with only one passenger, and only in uncontrolled airspace.

---

Senator Fraser Anning asked:

It’s noted that CASA produced a discussion paper that sought industry feedback regarding Class 2 medical reform. However, following the industry responses, CASA did not seek to discuss its considerations, views or intentions, thereby denying the industry an opportunity to work in partnership with the regulator to deliver the best outcome for the industry at large.

Can you explain how CASA is meeting its obligations under its regulatory philosophy, which requires the regulator to be inclusive of the entire process?

Under the new Class 2 Basic medical standard, CASA have removed the ability for a pilot to fly NVFR/IFR and Aerobatics. Given that all three modes of flight require significant additional training and demonstration competency, therefore improving the overall safety standard and surveillance of the pilot, can you please explain how CASA is improving GA safety by removing such privileges?

Answer:

The reforms to CASA Class 2 medical certification, after the initial industry consultation process, were considered by the Aviation Safety Advisory Panel, the primary industry advisory body to the Director of Aviation Safety through which CASA directs its engagement with industry prior to public release. The Panel includes individuals from Qantas, Virgin, the Australian Airports Association, the Australian Aviation Associations Forum (which has several general aviation associations as members), the Regional Aviation Association of Australia and Recreational Aviation Australia.

The process included a review of industry feedback as part of the discussion paper process. This approach is consistent with CASA’s regulatory philosophy.

The Basic Class 2 is aligned to a commercial road transport medical standard. The performance of flight crew tasks in a Night Visual Flight Rules (NVFR), Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) and aerobatic environment place different aeromedical demands on a pilot in terms of visual acuity, spatial awareness and cardiovascular fitness that are not captured by the Austroads commercial road transport medical standard.

The exclusion of these privileges from performance by Basic Class 2 holders is a matter of medical fitness, and not one of pilot competency. CASA has not removed any privileges as Aerobatics, NVFR and IFR are all still available under the existing Class 2 medical certificate.

 
What a bunch of ducking arrogant pricks -  



MTF...P2