Frankus1aust

Yes, by virtue of the inverse square law double the distance and have a 4 x noise reduction. (Except from a busy highway where the line source nature of the sound propagation can mean it will be more likely to cover a distance with a higher dB level). These wingers need to get a life.

No flights below 6,500 feet? Hoe would you land? An airport on Mt Kosciuszko?

Hence a council of aviation associations would be a good idea to address such mass-stupidness

I'm guessing you mean the piston detached and then the engine seized. The first question would be up to date A-D's. Also the date of engine production would be helpful as there are so far, three versions (and a few sub versions), each with pertinent maintenance points.

AOPA seem to have been the most active group recently as far as pilot interests go. Especially with issues like AvMed and other GA issues related to aircraft ownership. Re the RAA, I don't know for sure but I think that RAA finances are only partially covered by CASA. The main finance core is from the membership (someone might like to contribute some data here). Realistically they still have to work in a collaborative relationship with the regulator. That is not necessarily a bad thing. Hence it follows a representative group across the board would have more clout than any single member. I would consider we need something like a "council of aviation associations" to be taken seriously when it comes to promoting the common GA/RAA interests to the government bodies. As for the sectional interest stuff, these groups have their own programs.

Yes I get the picture and I can also see examples where this is a polishing job for a dud deal. I think the term has different meanings for whatever side of an argument up are on. Especially when it comes to "After consultation with all industry stakeholders" from a Minister. I recall spending two years in a process with a ministry and the final press release of the "consultation process" the government release was 180 degrees from the industry's real position. I assumed from that point on that the government's ears were "painted on" for decorative effect. My point is that regardless of whether or not they listen to you as a peak body, governments definitely won't listen to individuals or single associations unless it backs up their existing position. With the exception of an association that has a very good relationship with a government department. I'm sure it happens but I suspect it is a Unicorn. I am promoting the idea of a joint task force/association - amalgam/collective/peak body/call it what you will that can address CASA/Department etc as a single entity when it comes to issues that impede or negatively affect significant parts of the industry. For example, is the Minerals Council of Australia a lap dog of the government? APPEA representing the gas and oil industry? Lots of others. They carry weight. In my experience a government makes its mind up about something to solve a political or revenue problem and then unloads it on the industry. The regulator (if there is one) cops it and then has to impose it on the private industry. A peak body puts political pressure on the Minister and with luck, they get change/concessions. The regulator is often the meat in the sandwich. Speaking again from personal experience, if you have a functional relationship with the regulator or presiding department you can make life better for yourself as an industry. I notice that in aviation and the regulator, there areas where the relationship is combative. There's a long history of this. And on occasions when the regulator listens to representations and makes changes to reverse or moderate a previous position, the media calls it a "Backdown on..... " or whatever inflammatory language. So that's a great reward for cooperative engagement. A point scoring exercise against CASA is the opposite of what a cooperative collaboration is. I am interested to get any views on this. I don't expect everyone to agree with me. If you just have a of all-time unanimous agreement, sooner or later we all make the same mistake. Is this fantasy land?

Thanks, a great help

Thanks, is that for FSX or XPlane? Any suggestions where there is a link?

Sorry, a point above I missed, A peak body would not be above CASA creating another tier. The whole point of a peak body is to work as an incorporated association representing private interests to government. It has no power, is not a regulator and is a vehicle by which consultation with a private industry becomes less burdensome. To represent an industry wide position they need to have filtered out the dross and arrive at a reasonably member representative position. In general, I don't have a problem with CASA on my limited forays into the air (except maybe Avmed, but it's a process), My whole point is that with a declining industry, living the past as we are and with the existing processes, will deliver the industry more decline. The job of a peak body is more than dealing with the regulator about rules, it is about taking action to create a future for the industry. That is not CASA's job or mandate. In growing the industry it is necessary for the private interests and CASA to have a functional relationship that meets the objectives of both groups. As for any disaffected people who just want to vent their resentment or indulge in a grudge match, they are a liability to everybody.

Thanks, that is quite a resource

Thanks and yes, I have burnt plenty of time trying to get scenery addons to work in FSX and x plane 10

Speaking as an IT Bonobo with a pile of Microsoft and X plane discs, is there somewhere you can go and get it set up so it works with local scenery and either multi screen or VR headset so it works? You can see great stuff on Youtube on sims people have set up but I'm lucky if I can get anything that remotely looks like Moorabbin. And as for Essendon to Coldstream....... Color and movement but not much of an airstrip. Any suggestions? Could probably sell me a computer too. I'm sure I'm the only one and anyone out there would know more than me. Any suggestions?

Thanks and see my reply down the end somewhere. Bearing in mind I am the secretary of a peak body I helped start, though in a different industry, I'm guessing there are a lot of parallels. I hasten to add that one of the two regulators we deal with is has with us an excellent working relationship. The other.... we are working on it.

Regarding peak bodies, my definition did not come from the internet, I was involved in starting one a few years ago and am the elected secretary so I'm pretty familiar with the whole subject. We need to forget the idea that CASA is a peak body as far as a representative of the amalgam of private interests is within an industry. the definition I put up on an earlier post re CASA's role came quoted directly from the CASA home page. A peak body representing private interests is also not necessarily a "hat dump" organisation to save the government money or PR risk. All of the preceding is possible though if it is not set up well at the start. I am not advocating that we should have yet another pilot group to compete with the existing associations. For a GA/RAA orginisation to really represent the industry to government it needs to be composed of all (or almost all) the existing associations whether they are getting some funds from CASA/Government or not. A really representative body would have a board that is nominated by the associations who were ready and able to participate in an industry collective. An association made up from industry associations is not new. In fact it gives you more clout and cred. Not to mention a more coherent agenda. When you consider a formal collective industry group with member groups representing GA training, GA operations, RAA, Parachuting, Agricultural, aviation manufacturing and wholesale distribution and the other elements directly affected by government, (for better or less optimum), It is a sizable collection of interests. Most of them are not at crossed purposes most of the time. The only down side I see to this is some of the larger associations may may just want to run their own race, but so far, we see the results of that policy direction in a declining industry. The key is a well constructed constitution, written simply in plane language, a president/chairman with only a casting vote and who's position is to represent the board and a committee system for dealing with the industry sectors. The association would not be doing CASA's job for them and a good peak body would encourage higher standards and compliance through their association members. An effective body would also represent the industry's interests without fear or favor under the terms of their constitution in a transparent manner. The question is..... Are the existing association/groups up for it, or will they just descent into a negative rabble at the prospect of having to work collaborative with each other? I hope as pilots we are better than that. Just stick to the checklist.

And this is the point. An assortment of groups all with their own interests (all be it a lot in common) are a disorganised rabble as far as a regulator in concerned. Also as far as getting the big picture issues addressed a Peak Body would have sub section committees to address sectional interests. The focus would be not to harangue the regulator but to reverse the decline in the industry and create a better environment for growth in all sectors. Yes we have some competent groups as expressed above but so far, we still have a decline. Not good enough. Any company CEO presented with such statistics and no action won't have his job for long. There is nothing new in this. It's all been done before. Here's one for you.... AIG About Ai Group- The Australian Industry Group You wouldn't find a more diverse group of interests. The only difference to General Aviation is that we already have an assortment of committed groups. That should make it easier because each one is a network hub.

Thanks but where is a situation in Industry where a government regulator and a peak body are the same group of people? The whole point of a Peak Body is to represent the interests of their members industry or industry segment to Governments and the associated bureaucracy. Here is a list of a few examples. There are a lot more such bodies than appear on this list linked here. Industry Association Members - Australian Chamber CASA is not a Peak Body, it is the Government mandated regulatory body with the responsibility for the maintenance, enhancement and promotion of the safety of civil aviation in Australia. I would see this charter as neither in opposition or in alliance with a Peak Body. They have different roles. However a Peak Body will will promote interests that would normally not get a hearing in the normal regulatory event stream. There are plenty examples where industries would walked all over without a representative body.

I'm wondering if we should start a new thread related to the Peak Body. As it's not related to the Jab engines or any Jabiru related story

Thanks and I agree with the above sentiment, the peak body would be the General and Recreational Aviation body. The airlines have their own channels. To make this work it would need to include some board members from the existing associations as potential board and committee members otherwise it would fall into a diluted assortment of splinter groups and narrow interests. I'm not suggesting this is easy. Also Australian manufacturers need a seat at this table along with importer/wholesalers. The way to make this diverse group work is to have designated sub committees and these committees can have out side invited members but with no voting rights. The President would act as a Chair and have no voting rights.

I am writing to the various organisations and any suggestions/email addresses will be welcome. I'm still following up on the Jab timeline but in reality, it is a side show and just one element to the big picture of reinvigorating the industry. All comments welcome including the critical ones. A group with no dissenters will eventually all make the same mistake.

If this is done well it would improve the industry and also be functional to work cooperatively with the government and the department. I can already hear the critics.

Sorry for the long reply but I eventually get to the punch line I believe this required a systematic resolution without fear or favor on the part of the community affected by the Jabiru ban. We can be as objective and non witch hunt or department bashing as we like but is not going to prevent this from happening again. Since the initial thread comment from me, I have had an avalanche of emails and in a cursory view across the board, there are a number of big picture common denominators. There are no clean skins in this and Jabiru are not without a healthy dose of contribution to their problem. I suppose that's life. However if this is the way the department deals with the aviation community as a default position, I would be really concerned if I made my living in that industry or ran an enterprise. In my day gig industry, the industry body I am a board member of deals with the ACMA and ERAC regarding safety and compliance issues. Compared to the landscape I have seen so far with aviation.... the difference is night and day. So I will get to the point that will undercut the Jab engines and everything else I am seeing. The GA aviation industry is a disparate assortment of groups, interests, enterprises and individuals. There is a collection of associations that represent small sectors and push their own barrows to address whatever squeaky wheel is annoying them. A government department having do deal with that rabble is going to get frustrated and chart their own course. In the presence of groups with contrary motivations and no clear industry cohesion, any guesses what we'll get? That's what we have now. Yes we can bang on about Jabiru (and I will given a complete report), this will not solve the big and more landscape issues of the decline of the industry. The only long term viable answer is to have a real industry Peak Body. Governments and departments have to listen to them or suffer a PR flogging naming names and clarifying issues in the popular media. Though with an effective Peak Body, it generally doesn't get to that because things get resolved around a table. We have an opportunity now to create a real industry Peak Body comprising all the stake holders of GA/Training/RAA/Sport and agricultural aviation and also the manufacturing sector. The existing associations will need to be on board. If this is done with the participation from the groups and a well considered association constitution, board, policy and a hit list of things to do, we will get somewhere. Did I hear someone say "Too hard, it will fragment into special interests and politics?" That is not a foregone conclusion. I have seen it done and participated in the creation of functional industry body made up of people who initially didn't like each other at all. It was a get together or face a collapse of a vital section of the industry due to a massive government screw up. (The spectrum sell off). Their mutual interest overrode the industry politics. In the end, we had the department with us and now have a great relationship what works for everybody. As for the board, they all now get on well, so it can be done. So that's it - form a Peak Body. If we don't, sports and recreational aviation manufacturing will go, the costs will go up, education will decline or stagnate into a sausage factory for foreign students etc. etc. Also this is not a good outcome for CASA either. I am going to float this around every communication hub I can find. Any suggestions? Frankus [email protected] So..... Put a peak body together or expect more of the same.

I think the best way to address this and learn something that is useful for all stakeholders going forward, is to start with a time line of events. A report should start with a background to the bigger picture, followed by a neutral time sequence of events, all sourced from transparent data sources. No doubt all the contributors to the event stream didn't start off at war. With all the data in a line, somewhere along that line it will start taking a left hand turn. I think there's some lessons here once this is all laid out and I'm also not assuming that Jabiru are the victims and CASA are the sons of Satan. I think that the process was not handled and executed well by CASA or Jabiru, as I'm sure the ban didn't just fall from the sky without a back story. However I could be wrong. Anything that anyone wants to contribute is welcome but facts and hard copy info is more helpful than opinions. Aevent stream is more helpful than a witch hunt. Personality bashing is too easy and in the end it turns into trench warfare. All the same, this will probably revolve around a few personalities in the end. My email address is [email protected] if anyone wants to email me assuming this is ok with the site administrator.

It is notable how much aggro among sections of the RAA and GA community this subject provokes. I thought it was just me being reactive but the only subject that starts people up more than this is Avmed....... Whops I said it! Having said that, I've been watching the CASA YouTube videos and they are a good effort. PS: A frank and earnest discussion may be possible.

PS ... The truth may not be convenient or easy to find but it will be full of human factors

It is pretty easy to get heated in such a debate. As a sideline I am the honorary secretary of an industry association and my dealings with government agencies have generally been pretty good. This Jab/CASA episode for me is an aberration as far as past experience is concerned. My point is.... If an agency is going to yank the mat out from under a company or an industry sector, they better have a good process and explanation in place along with who and why. If the aforementioned is there with supporting data that reasonably justifies the actions, I will shut the hell up.