Jump to content

Industry Rally tomorrow (May 6th) Tamworth.


Recommended Posts

Was an aviation representative from the Opposition (or minor Party) there? Having the current (albeit lately arrived) Minister present was good, but with an election coming, and no absolute certainty as to who will form the next Government, it would have been nice to have our concerns aired before all Parties likely to form it.

 

If the Minister heard the Chairman say that CASA was dysfunctional, then one hopes that someone has been told to get his bum off the Chair and start laying in the boot to everyone in the Authority.

 

We live in Hope.

 

OME

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 56
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Was an aviation representative from the Opposition (or minor Party) there? Having the current (albeit lately arrived) Minister present was good, but with an election coming, and no absolute certainty as to who will form the next Government, it would have been nice to have our concerns aired before all Parties likely to form it.If the Minister heard the Chairman say that CASA was dysfunctional, then one hopes that someone has been told to get his bum off the Chair and start laying in the boot to everyone in the Authority.

 

We live in Hope.

 

OME

Speaking to ben Morgan later that day he did invite the opposition minister but didn't get a response. Apologies for the spelling above.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Speaking to ben Morgan later that day he did invite the opposition minister but didn't get a response.

That's a shame.

 

OME

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
I was there and gotta say I wasn't impressed with what some did & what the industry did not do well enough.I'll elaborate later when I've calmed down a bit, also had a long flight of 4.7 hrs back home.

Ok, jakej... Do you have any further feedback, or is it too soon yet? 086_gaah.gif.afc514336d60d84c9b8d73d18c3ca02d.gif

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

hopefully he sees the issue with GA and how it affects rural communities.

 

but there aren't a lot of votes in aviation, if any. I get the feeling even most of the audience would never change their vote over aviation policy.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Barnaby may not be there after the election. the ex independent Tony Windsor is standing againsst him.

 

 

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Barnaby may not be there after the election. the ex independent Tony Windsor is standing againsst him.

Which is why Mr Windsor and any other local politician should have been present.

 

It is unfortunate that the meeting has become more of a local issue than a national one. Who has heard of this topic being given airtime anywhere else but in that one electorate? Surely it is a matter that has impacts in every rural electorate, and in many metropolitan ones as well.

 

OME

 

 

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Was an aviation representative from the Opposition (or minor Party) there? Having the current (albeit lately arrived) Minister present was good, but with an election coming, and no absolute certainty as to who will form the next Government, it would have been nice to have our concerns aired before all Parties likely to form it.

Albo was the last one in the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd governments. He subscribes very much to the Keating doctrine of 'if you're not in Sydney-you're in the bush! Doubt if he would even recognise anything smaller than a 737!

 

happy days,

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

My musings, observations & opinions only re Aviation meeting with deputy Prime minister, minister for Transport & chairman of CASA board.

 

This was an opportunity that doesn’t come very often & although the convenor was very articulate in the presentation but I think he blew it by allowing the event to get a bit out of control with some behaviour likened to “baying for blood”. Understandable but out of place on the day.

 

There was too much talk about ADSB & I’m not sure many really understand it all – there is a lot of info on the Airservices site about it.

 

I’m sure there would have been more people there from the industry if 1. They could afford the travel costs & 2. Intimidation (imagined or otherwise) by some CASA people in the past was seen as a deterrent to attend.

 

Many in the audience were fired up & in some cases had legitimate grievances but this wasn’t the time for that, a big picture approach should have been taken.

 

IMO the body language of those we were supposed to get the message across to was palpable, to me it was obvious they would have walked away if they could have. I was standing next to the media & it was obvious they saw no value in the event & left early.

 

The timing of the meeting was unfortunate, in hindsight, due to the eminent announcement of the election however I feel the message did get across enough to make it all worthwhile being there.

 

I believe we do finally stand a chance (could be wrong & have been before) with CASA making some serious changes with the CASA Chairman expressing his desire & willingness to make serious improvements in how they do things, the meeting was abuzz with news of forced staff movements from CASA.

 

My contention is as mentioned before, we need to look at the big picture – removing minions is one thing but there are also power brokers & empire builders within white anting DAS, now & in the past. Maybe the legal department has too much power too & is hamstringing CASA & some believe they are in control & not DAS.

 

If any of the above were true then spare a thought for those still working in CASA who just want to go to work but not achieving any good job satisfaction knowing that a lot of people in the same industry despise the organisation that they work for – morale would have to be very low.

 

As I see it CASA has lost industry respect & needs to change their culture, not just remove some people but also the ones that have caused that lack of respect.

 

IMO, once that is done then we can all move on to a better place rather than feeling & being crushed by bureaucracy & red tape.

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Informative 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Jakej,

 

I very much agree that a bigger picture approach needs to be taken. CASA reversing their decision on ADS-B won't fix things in the long term. The same people, using the same system, will make the same bonehead decisions. The only way to fix these problems properly is to put a clear and logical framework together about how these sorts of decisions should be made.

 

Thanks for going and sharing your thoughts.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I couldn't believe there was so much emphasis on ADSB though - the requirements for ADSB OUT don't apply to VFR aircraft & won't for many years into the future. Many confuse the issue through lackof understanding but basically if you replace a Transponder, install a new one or have registered an aircraft after Feb 2014, then it must be a Mode S type - not mode C which we are used to, basically that's it. Of note is that some of these units were about the same price as a Mode C unit so it made sense to go to S. FYI - Mode S with ES (Extended Squitter), don't buy one without ES, is needed IF you want/need ADSB OUT.

 

For the last 4/5 years Mode S Transponders are the only type I have been installing in all sorts of sport aircraft but did not mention that at Tamworth because I felt it could have diluted the arguments by those against the IFR ADSB requirements.

 

Finally - the apparent good Transponder (particularly ADSB traffic) coverage by Flt Radar 24 is not all of what the ATC system sees as there aren't many ground stations to give the coverage expected by some at the lower levels ie under 5 to 10,000ft. I wouldn't be rushing to buy the expensive stuff anytime soon as there is much happening behind the scenes which will result in less cost to us all. More info about coverage here http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/projects/ads-b/ads-b-coverage/

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The ADSB problem is that Australia is making it essential, well before the USA. There are people inthe USA who are not happy with the speed of it being mandatory there. We will be way ahead and buying gear which could be superseded when the US mandates it. the cost for GA is horrendous in some cases.

 

 

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm figuring the 'early' implementation (of ADSB for IFR) may have to do with costs, ie there was probably a need for upgrading or more radars & they are very expensive.

 

It reminds me of way back in 1999 when Airservices were looking at having a unique ADSB type system (to long to explain but they used my aircraft for some tests in Canberra) with ground based 'beep back ' units as well. They (Airservices) worked out it would be cheaper to give one to every aircraft in Oz then to build 1 x radar site. Guess what, it all became political because of a few industry well known players & it was dropped because of them & a manufacturer who decided it wasn't worth manufacturing & continuing support for approx 10,000 units, go figure !!

 

Only a few years after that there was a requirement for GPWS & subsequently EGPWS - same situation as we have now, the industry had years of warning beforehand but many still kicked up a stink when it was finally introduced.

 

A bit of deja vu here now with ADSB - remember it is ONLY for IFR aircraft for some time well into the future.

 

Yenn - the gear is not going to be superceded however, although there may/will be a way to get ADSB OUT for VFR (if you want it & maybe IFR) at a reasonably low price (I'm testing one in the $us600 region) the Mode S Tranponder fitment is still as per my post # 40.

 

 

  • Informative 1
  • Winner 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

For security you would still need RADAR. Aircraft not wanting to be seen could easily arrange no ADSB signal Running ahead of the USA where quantity will lower price is ridiculous and the equipment is always being improved on. In areas where there is a lot of traffic. (RAAus fly ins in the future. {Optimist}) I think the clutter would make their value a little hard to quantify. Nev

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The USA are implementing a dual frequency system. They are using the same as us (1090ES)and another system (UAT). UAT can carry more data and that is how they can get the in flight weather. They use ground stations to rebroadcast the traffic information from 1 system on the other so no one misses out on traffic. For flight at high altitude in the USA you need the 1090es system and if you have the UAT system you will still need a mode C transponder. This means that a lot of the system development in the USA is compatible with what we need in Australia.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I know the US is using UAT for traffic & Wx etc IN but many are just using 1090 OUT, 1090 is being used by the rest of the world. Unless you consider (as apparently some do) that the USA is the world.095_cops.gif.448479f256bea28624eb539f739279b9.gif

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
For security you would still need RADAR. Aircraft not wanting to be seen could easily arrange no ADSB signal Running ahead of the USA where quantity will lower price is ridiculous and the equipment is always being improved on. In areas where there is a lot of traffic. (RAAus fly ins in the future. {Optimist}) I think the clutter would make their value a little hard to quantify. Nev

Nev, I was not saying that ADSB was replacing Radar - the point was that more Radar coverage is too expensive compared to newr technologies & is too short range, anyway we just don't have the population density to justify the cost. In Canada/Alaska they had a different problem as the terrain made it unviable to build more Radar sites so the "Capstone" solution was created using satellite & ground based systems.

 

Sorry but your assertion about security doesn't wash here - all anyone (I'm not at all saying this should be done) would have to do is turn of the transponder as some (VFR) do now, or do not turn it on before flight because they are worried that if they 'bust' airspace CASA will find out & 'ping' them.

 

 

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Benjamin

14th April 2016

 

The Hon Barnaby Joyce

 

Deputy Prime Minister & Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources

 

House of Representatives

 

Parliament House

 

Canberra ACT 2600

 

Australia.

 

The Hon Darren Chester MP

 

Minister for Infrastructure and Transport

 

House of Representatives

 

Parliament House

 

Canberra ACT 2600

 

Australia.

 

Mr Jeff Boyd

 

Chairman of the Board, Civil Aviation Safety Authority

 

GPO Box 2005

 

Canberra ACT 2601

 

The 94,000+ Users of the Aviation Advertiser Network

 

Dear Ministers & Chairman,

 

FOLLOW UP RESPONSE – INVITATION TO MEET IN CANBERRA 24TH MAY 2016.

 

I would like to extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to each of you with regard to your attendance at the Aviation Rally I organised on Friday 6th May 2016 at Tamworth Regional Airport. I understand that all of you are busy, and I do appreciate your taking the time for this important event.

 

Upfront, I would like to convey my sincere apology, with regard to the rushed commencement of proceedings, during which I did not clearly introduce the attending Ministers and Chairman appropriately. This was certainly not an intentional undertaking and I openly apologise if it has caused any offence. However I trust my mistake did not overshadow the value of the core message of the rally.

 

Over 400 persons were in attendance on Friday 6th May standing with the general aviation industry's leading associations and peak bodies. Many had driven and flown considerable distances, arriving from each state and territory of Australia, all undertaken at a considerable personal and business expense. Each participant a passionate supporter of aviation, desiring nothing more than a ‘fair go’ for general aviation in Australia. An industry calling on government to remove the unnecessary costs that excessive regulation imposes.

 

I would like to quote Mr Darren Chester MP, during his recent speech to Parliament, defending the jobs of truck owner-drivers; “Australians shouldn’t have to drive thousands of kilometres, spend thousands of dollars of their own money, to fight for their jobs. These are not paid protestors, these Australian mums and dads are passionate about their industry, passionate about the future of our nation.”.

 

For too long the aviation industry has been voiceless, unable to meaningfully engage with the political powers that hold direct control of the future of the general aviation industry. The rally signifies a shift for the industry, as it now seeks to actively elevate its concerns into the national debate.

 

Although at times heated, the rally highlighted the serious divide that exists between industry and government. It has also made clear the frustrations experienced by aviation users, unable to resolve the core issues which are damaging our general aviation industry.

 

From what you have each seen and heard first hand at Tamworth, the general aviation industry has declared a ‘no confidence’ position, with regard to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) and its regulatory framework. Those in attendance have demonstrated that the industry can no longer endure the further inaction by the safety regulator. Thousands of aviation businesses and their employees are at risk, their futures uncertain as a result.

 

General aviation across Australia has been forced to accept a regulatory framework that is thoroughly incompatible with our industry, by a regulator who did not seek a consensus or mandate from its key stakeholder - the general aviation industry itself. Had an industry referendum taken place, Australia would be currently enjoying the benefits of the United States, Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR). This position is further supported by the recent submissions of both the AOPA Project Eureka and the TAAAF Policy Paper 2016.

 

CASA has continually ignored the qualified consensus and requests of its key stakeholders (the aviation industry) and has forced the implementation of a regulatory package which has been acknowledged worldwide as causing widespread general aviation destruction across Europe. All of which is well documented, publicly available and in plain sight.

 

Recently a number of senior EASA personnel have come forward, including Executive Director Mr Patrick Ky, openly acknowledging that the EASA platform is incompatible with general aviation. Communicating that its regulatory framework is ‘misguided' and that it 'must change its approach' or the destruction of general aviation will continue.

 

Our closest aviation partner, New Zealand (NZ), identified the EASA shortcomings early and reformed its aviation regulatory framework a number of years ago, harmonising to the US FAA FAR’s with the goal of reducing costs to industry. Subsequently, their general aviation industry have been given the tools and resources to develop and grow - now clearly leading Australia. The New Zealand aviation regulator completed its reform for a fraction of what has already been spent by CASA, which is still nowhere near completion.

 

Meanwhile, the Federal Aviation Administration of the United States continues to manage the world's most successful aviation economy, developing a diverse and profitable general aviation industry based on its progressive and supportive regulatory framework.

 

The EASA Executive Director’s acknowledgements are amplified by the comments by CASA Chairman, Mr Jeff Boyd, during the aviation rally stating that the framework was both a ‘cluster disaster’ and ‘unworkable’ for general aviation. Going further to state that CASA was simply applying ‘bandaids’ to the structural failures and inadequacies of the EASA regulatory framework.

 

The attendance and participation of the CASA Chairman was both appreciated and valued and I commend him for openly facing the industry. His concise and frank acknowledgements of the incompatibility of the regulatory framework were unambiguous and supportive of the industry’s qualified call to end the failed EASA experiment and to move to the US FAA FAR’s. However, his position on ADSB simply demonstrated the disjointed and broken chain of strategy and management within CASA.

 

At the risk of repeating myself, the situation with ADSB implementation in Australia is a clear example of the mismanagement to which the Australian aviation industry is being subjected. Rather than simply extend the compliance date from 2017 (three years ahead of the US) to 2021 to match New Zealand, the safety regulator is seeking to create further bureaucratic processes. Further increasing the excessive costs to industry by requiring aviation users to submit an individual ADSB exemption application. This position is absurd at best.

 

The economic impact on the general industry is significant (CASA’s estimate is approximately $30 million). As such, it is clear that forcing the Australian general aviation industry into compliance three (3) years ahead of the world's most successful aviation economy (the US) will limit the number of compliant aircraft significantly. Additionally, increasing the divide between the regulator and aviation users across Australia.

 

Industry firmly believes that CASA’s fixed stance on the ADSB compliance date demonstrates their clear inflexibility in applying fair policy and shows the regulator to be manifestly unreasonable towards the needs of industry. (See Section 1.2.1 CASA Governance Framework Manual).

 

If I could again quote Mr Darren Chester MP, during his recent speech to Parliament, defending the jobs of truck owner-drivers; “...this is a government responding to legitimate concerns of owner drivers throughout Australia, owner drivers, who right now fear they are being forced out of work, forced out of their industry, unable to make their family commitments… as someone who has come to this place without a great interest in party political games, and I'm not someone who gets involved in the political cut and thrust, I try to build consensus, I try to get things done within my community and work with either side wherever possible. But sometimes Mr Deputy Speaker, you have to pick a side. You just have to pick a side on an issue like this and as a regional MP as the Transport Minister I am proudly on the side of small business owners.”

 

Minister, the Australian general aviation industry is comprised of thousands of hard working men and women, largely involved in small business, and they are going under and need your support. These people are the 'truckies of the sky', asking for nothing more than what you fought for on behalf of driver-owners recently.

 

CASA as a result of implementing a failing EASA framework has virtually sunk our industry in excessive compliance requirements and costs that are designed for the airlines - not small business. If we continue with the status quo, CASA will certainly bankrupt Australia’s general aviation industry.

 

Therefore, the general aviation industry calls on the Minister to take the necessary steps to formally direct CASA to set aside the failed EASA experiment and for the regulator to adopt the world's most successful aviation regulatory framework - the United States Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) framework. A move which is supported by all of Australia’s general aviation industry associations, peak-bodies and leadership (see AOPA Project Eureka and TAAAF Aviation Policy 2016).

 

In doing so, you will be providing our industry the regulatory tools and resources it needs to recover, develop and succeed both within Australia and abroad. You will be ensuring the hard working men and women throughout aviation industry face a certain future.

 

With regard to the invitation made at the aviation rally to meet in Canberra on the 24th May 2016 to discuss the key issues. I would like to accept this invitation on behalf of the 94,000 users of the Aviation Advertiser network and will be accompanied by a delegation which represents Australia’s leading general aviation associations and peak-bodies.

 

For this meeting in Canberra to have value and to provide a productive outcome for the general aviation industry, I would like to suggest that we focus on establishing a pathway agreement, to which the industry can provide its support for the coalition at the 2nd July election. Additionally, I am respectfully requesting that Air Vice-Marshal Gary Beck AO (Retd) chair the meeting.

 

As you would appreciate, we have been approached by a number of political parties and representatives, with regard to seeking our endorsement and support. Team Nick Xenophon already releasing a clear position statement with regard to ADSB.

 

Now that the parliament has been dissolved, with the election called for 2nd July 2016, it is imperative that the general aviation industry be given an opportunity to understand the Liberal/National Coalition position and policy with regard to general aviation.

 

The general aviation industry will again rally in South Australia, with the event date to be announced shortly. Along with events in all other states of Australia.

 

Thank you again and I am looking forward to meeting in Canberra on the 24th May. I await your response.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

BENJAMIN MORGAN

 

Chief Executive - Aviation Advertiser Digital Group

 

Telephone: (02) 8215 6292

 

Mobile: 0415 577 724

 

Email: [email protected]

 

Mailing Address:

 

PO BOX 465

 

Edgecliff NSW 2027

 

Australia.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jake I can't see the difference in what you suggest re turning ident off, whether transponder or ADSB. (which I think should be illegal.) and what I'm saying.

 

My point is we still need some radar, (or surveillance). I think SOME people thought ADSB would eliminate the need for Radar. Nev

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nev - We're on the same page here - radar will be with us for a long, long time, especially in the "J" curve down around the east coast. There is no other option ! ADSB was never intended to replace radar or existing systems, it just is a much more cost effective way of giving some sort of surveilllance (for want of a better word) & air to air traffic rather than adding more expensive limited range radars to the system - "we" just can't afford that & it's not practicle.

 

 

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...