Jump to content
fly_tornado

RAA "creates" 10.000 pilots in 10 years

Recommended Posts

if I was unhappy as some I would either man up and get involved on a board level

 

 

 

Too late for that. With the changed board to 7 (remember it was proposed to be 5) total control in vested in 4 people, and with no regional representation you get exactly the outcome the have.  Chickens are now coming home to roost.  But that is what they majority who bothered to vote chose and some still believe in the choice so we can sit back and watch the outcome.  I believe more regulation & less freedom is the order of the day with our new mini GA approach -  what has occurred so far is only the beginning with the current uncontrolled leadership.

 

But it was all pointed out BEFORE the change was voted on & members had their choice who to believe.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Avenues" such as clubs with club sponsored 3 axis aircraft with instruction in certified 2 seat aircraft, Drifters are an example. The demise of clubs where volunteers provide or contribute  to instruction are almost a thing of the past for various reasons. I see Powered Paragliding as an example of a form of flying which is a fun without the control, they seem to be doing a pretty good job keeping safe without the bureaucracy. Incidentally, I am one of those people who front up every week and volunteer time and effort to contribute, however I can, to keep the aviation dream alive for others as well as myself in my area. That's how we try to make a difference, not by trying to get on the board of the RAA but being active on the committee of our local clubs (what is left of them) and working within the framework we have.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I flew to a nearby airfield recently. There was a large number of Asian students based there. They were training in LSA.

 

That must boost the number of new RAAus members, and the hours flown each year.

 

I assume they convert to GA aircraft later to gain their CPL. Perhaps they are PPL and RAAus, building training hours in LSA.

 

Good numbers for RAAus, but bad for GA.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Except if they are Asian ga pilots using RAAus as a lower cost method RAAus only keeps them as members for a year at best ... so even if there are 4-500 of them they are not really into rev aviation at all let alone ultralights.  

 

But if if you could extend RAAus to higher weight and access CTA wouldn’t it be rather nice if you were a large operation training students for airline entry ... just saying 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But if if you could extend RAAus to higher weight and access CTA wouldn’t it be rather nice if you were a large operation training students for airline entry ... just saying

 

That moves us further away from the 'recreational' aspect, and into direct competition with the GA Part 142 flying schools, ie, the mass production establishments. It's difficult to see that these high pressure schools would attract people who simply want to fly recreationally. In my experience, these schools are the very place not to learn to fly if one wanted to fly for flyings' sake. So that leaves us with the Part 141 schools which focus on RPL and PPL training - which is where most Aussies learn because there is less pressure, and the syllabus is oriented toward simple flying in Class G airspace.

 

I think RAAus should be sticking to its 'knitting' and training for genuine recreational reasons. Our students are much more likely to remain in the system as recreational pilots, and as such, are the likely owners and hirers of RAAus registered aircraft. There will be some upward leakage to the RPL, but a well trained RPC has no problem attaining the RPL, especially if the RAA and GA flying schools are back-to-back, or work co-operatively off the same airport. Many of these RPLs are only interested in CTA, or in 4 seats, but eventually return to RAAus flying because of the expense with larger aircraft.

 

Everyone has their opinion on whether 'general aviation' is withering on the vine. It certainly has declined in recent years, and IMHO, the prime reason is that there is now such a diversity of activities for younger people to engage in with less cost involved. This is despite the cost of flying training having reduced, (relative to wages), since the boom flying years of the 60s, 70s and 80s. I think that another quite important factor is the lack of 'inclusiveness' if you like, when one person is flying and their partner or mate is stranded on a cold/roasting, comfortless airport or flying school. Some locations and schools do make a real effort to resolve these issues - Aldinga in SA is one vg example. This isn't to say that every location needs expansive clubrooms, playgrounds, and lots of social activities - but these are probably influential in attracting the families of pilots to spend time at the airport. Back -in -the- day, pilots rarely included anyone else - it was a solitary pursuit best done without other concerns. Then to all of the above, you can add increased security at airports, and increased theory requirements.

 

A few thoughts on a non-flying day! happy days,

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another reason for the decline is the cost of housing. After paying the mortgage, there is not much left for flying these days.

If I were entering the workforce today, there is no way that I could repeat what I did in the 1960's.

Mind you, CASA has added to the problems. Bureaucracy is a far worse impediment than it was. The only product ever produced by bureaucracy is poverty.

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uncertainty, either real or percieved is a killer of confidence

With a regulator in place who could make a widely impacting decision. One that could jeaparidise a personal five or even six figure investment, takes either high level of optimisim or stupidity.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone who believes flying hours can increase by 80% from one year to the next probably believes in Father Christmas and the Easter Bunny.

What was that about FAKE news again?

 

The easy way to a reducing accident rate and fatalities per 100,000 hours flown - simply exaggerate the hours flown. Hey Presto! the rate comes down. The GFA also does this by a factor of at least 2. Some of their claims are just ludicrous like the 268,000 hours claimed in gliders in 2006. The stats people at Dept of Transport know this very well but can't be bothered doing anything about it, neither can CASA, which should tell you there is no government commitment to aviation safety, just a commitment to their own jobs, pay, security and pensions. They don't want to rock the boat because it would reveal that their activities are all a waste of resources and a gigantic, blatant lie.

 

Aviation safety ultimately comes down to Newton's Laws of Motion and Gravitation. If you try to break those you die.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mike, some things that are obviously true can be better off unsaid. I reckon the exaggeration of hours flown falls into that category.

Look what happened to Dick Smith when he said that Australia needed an affordable aviation safety policy. Obviously true when you consider the alternative of an unaffordable policy. But the wrong thing to say out loud.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mike, some things that are obviously true can be better off unsaid. I reckon the exaggeration of hours flown falls into that category.

Look what happened to Dick Smith when he said that Australia needed an affordable aviation safety policy. Obviously true when you consider the alternative of an unaffordable policy. But the wrong thing to say out loud.

Once you go down that path you get s reputation for being dodgy, and come under surveillance. Whoever came up with the 100,000 hours is easily discredited by analysis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
some things that are obviously true can be better off unsaid. I reckon the exaggeration of hours flown falls into that category.

Why??????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

cos honesty is not always the best policy. I read this good advice about when to tell people things... the answer was that you tell them when its easy to fix... so they thank you for telling them that their fly is undone. But they won't thank you for telling them their oldest child is possibly retarded.

  • Winner 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It happens to be a Criminal Offence to knowingly supply false data required by the Commonwealth. Both for the supplier and any bureaucrats who know it is false and do nothing about it. Carries a jail term.

What advantage is it to behave so stupidly? Why lie to yourself?

What it does show is that nobody official cares about the safety of sport aviation and the leadership of the organisations should stop worrying about upsetting the bureaucrats.

As long as we don't kill innocents on the ground (probability is your friend here - the actual built up areas are a very small percentage of the Earth surface and aircraft crash all the time for all sorts of reasons with a remarkable lack of damage to people and structures) and don't run into regional airliners (avoidable by keeping a good lookout and a few simple rules of the air) the only people who care about our safety is us. It's just us.

So why lie?

  • Agree 1
  • Winner 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why lie?

 

The cynic in me says self preservation and promotion.

 

1. We have come in to this basket case organisation to fix it

2. We did everything you asctegulator said - bugger member consultation or any form of advocacy we want to do the right thing - as defined by you dearest CASA

3. Activity has dramatically increased so we must be acceptable to the members

4. Your chosen metric of safety has dramatically improved- thumbs up to us

5. Dearest CASA what next do you want us to do on your insistence and at our members $$ ???

 

And please, Please PLEASE Make sure there is a nice new metric that will show we are all brilliant so anyone not us who tries getting political action against over regulation can be blinded by it and a series of brilliantly sloping graphs - the last thing we as aviation management want is logic being applied.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
  • More 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, kasper and the lies will be excused because they think it will benefit the organisation. It is called "noble cause corruption".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have a read of this?

Who is dragging the chain?

KP.

 

DAS DIRECTIVE

 

 

Records Manager - D15/462765

 

01/2016

 

DAS Directive No. 1/2015 1 of 3

DAS DIRECTIVE – 01/2015

 

Development and Application of Risk- Based and

 

Cost- Effective Aviation Safety Regulations

 

Date of Directive: 29 May 2015

 

Directive No: 01/2015

 

Issue No: 2

 

Date Revised: 28 January 2016

 

Directive

This Directive reaffirms CASA’s commitment to ensure that regulatory changes are justified

 

on the basis of safety risk and do not impose unnecessary costs or unnecessarily hinder

 

participation in aviation and its capacity for growth.

 

It also extends the principles underlying this commitment to the application and

 

administration of the regulations by CASA, to the fullest practicable extent consistent with the

 

interests of safety.

 

DAS Directives

 

01/2015

 

DAS DIRECTIVE

 

Records Manager – D15/462765

 

01/2016

 

DAS Directive No. 1/2015 2 of 3

Guiding Principles

 

Development of Aviation Safety Regulations

• Aviation safety regulations must be shown to be necessary. They are to be

 

developed with a view to addressing known or likely safety risks that cannot be

 

addressed effectively by non-regulatory means alone.

 

• Consistent with CASA’s obligations under the Civil Aviation Act and other

 

Commonwealth laws and Government policies, every proposed regulation must be

 

assessed against the contribution it will make to aviation safety, having particular

 

regard to the safety of passengers and other persons affected or likely to be affected

 

by the activity involved.

 

• If a regulation can be justified on safety-risk grounds, it must be made in a form that

 

provides for the most efficient allocation of industry and CASA resources.

 

Regulations must not impose unnecessary costs or unnecessarily hinder levels of

 

participation in aviation and its capacity for growth.

 

• Aviation safety regulations should conform to the framework for the classification of

 

aircraft operations, and align with other standards and practices, adopted by the

 

International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), unless differences are necessary to

 

address particular features peculiar to the Australian aviation environment and

 

those differences can be justified on safety-risk grounds. On the same basis, the

 

aviation safety regulations should be consistent with international best practice, as

 

reflected in the standards and practices of other leading aviation countries.

 

• Recognising that international standards and practices vary, CASA will align its

 

regulations with those that effectively address identified safety risks in the most costeffective

 

manner.

 

• Where it is appropriate to do so, aviation safety regulations are to be drafted to

 

specify intended safety outcomes. Where known or likely safety risks cannot be

 

addressed effectively utilising an outcome-based approach (in whole or in part), more

 

prescriptive requirements will be specified.

 

• In developing aviation safety regulations, CASA must consult appropriately with

 

industry in an open and transparent manner ensuring that all communication is clear,

 

timely and effective.

 

• Subject to the applicable drafting requirements, CASA will strive to ensure aviation

 

safety regulations are drafted as clearly and concisely as possible.

 

• Where practicable, aviation safety regulations should be developed within a three-tier

 

framework, comprising the Civil Aviation Act, the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations

 

and Manuals of Standards.

 

• Supportive advisory and guidance materials, including other acceptable means of

 

compliance with regulatory requirements, will be promulgated and disseminated in

 

conjunction with new and amended regulations, having regard to the time when

 

compliance with new or amended regulations will be required.

 

DAS Directives

 

01/2015

 

DAS DIRECTIVE

 

Records Manager – D15/462765

 

01/2016

 

DAS Directive No. 1/2015 3 of 3

 

Application of Aviation Safety Regulations

• In accordance with the Civil Aviation Act, the safety of air navigation is the most

 

important consideration for CASA in performing its functions and exercising its

 

powers.

 

• Consistent with that obligation, the principle of legality and the explicit requirements of

 

the civil aviation legislation in any particular case, CASA must always have regard to

 

all relevant considerations when exercising discretionary powers, including the cost

 

 

and other burdens involved in the application of regulatory requirements.

 

• This cannot and does not mean that CASA must demonstrate that, in exercising its

 

discretionary powers under the regulations in any given case, it has adopted or will

 

 

adopt a course of action involving the lowest cost to, or least adverse impact on, the

 

person or persons affected by that action.

 

• What it does mean is that, where a person who is or will be affected by CASA’s

 

exercise of discretionary powers under the regulations convincingly demonstrates,

 

on evidence, that:

 

- the same safety outcome contemplated by the applicable regulatory

 

 

requirement can be achieved on another, more cost-effective and/or otherwise

 

less onerous basis;

 

- the person is able and willing to adopt and give meaningful effect to that

 

 

alternative approach to compliance;

 

- the alternative approach proposed can be implemented fully and effectively in

 

 

a timely fashion, having regard to the interests of safety;

 

- the adoption and implementation of such an alternative approach by CASA

 

 

would not involve unreasonable additional oversight or administrative

 

responsibilities on CASA’s part; and

 

- no other persons would be adversely or unfairly affected by the adoption of

 

 

that alternative approach,

 

CASA will entertain a reasonable proposal for the adoption of another approach and,

 

in the absence of good reason not to do so, CASA will adopt such an alternative

 

approach.

 

Signed

 

Mark Skidmore AM

 

Director of Aviation Safety

 

Date: 28 January 2016

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everything we have set out to do has been achieved and exceeded. We have assessed the situation and wouldn't misrepresent anything. We are great and ALL is well. No need for any other assessment. Even if it IS true, self marking your own examination is not reliable, and looks BAD.. It has to pass the PUB test.

IF "well THEY WOULD say that, wouldn't they? applies" it has no validity. Love of truth is a rare affliction. Crime and dodgyness pays or there wouldn't be so many doing it.. Nev

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

its pretty obvious whats happening Keith, pilots are giving up GA qualifications and going RAA and getting better paid ground jobs. Luckily foreign pilots are still eligible for 457 visas

  • Agree 1
  • More 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have a read of this?

Who is dragging the chain?

KP.

 

DAS DIRECTIVE

 

 

Records Manager - D15/462765

 

01/2016

 

DAS Directive No. 1/2015 1 of 3

DAS DIRECTIVE – 01/2015

 

Development and Application of Risk- Based and

 

Cost- Effective Aviation Safety Regulations

 

Date of Directive: 29 May 2015

 

Directive No: 01/2015

 

Issue No: 2

 

Date Revised: 28 January 2016

 

Directive

This Directive reaffirms CASA’s commitment to ensure that regulatory changes are justified

 

on the basis of safety risk and do not impose unnecessary costs or unnecessarily hinder

 

participation in aviation and its capacity for growth.

 

It also extends the principles underlying this commitment to the application and

 

administration of the regulations by CASA, to the fullest practicable extent consistent with the

 

interests of safety.

 

DAS Directives

 

01/2015

 

DAS DIRECTIVE

 

Records Manager – D15/462765

 

01/2016

 

DAS Directive No. 1/2015 2 of 3

Guiding Principles

 

Development of Aviation Safety Regulations

• Aviation safety regulations must be shown to be necessary. They are to be

 

developed with a view to addressing known or likely safety risks that cannot be

 

addressed effectively by non-regulatory means alone.

 

• Consistent with CASA’s obligations under the Civil Aviation Act and other

 

Commonwealth laws and Government policies, every proposed regulation must be

 

assessed against the contribution it will make to aviation safety, having particular

 

regard to the safety of passengers and other persons affected or likely to be affected

 

by the activity involved.

 

• If a regulation can be justified on safety-risk grounds, it must be made in a form that

 

provides for the most efficient allocation of industry and CASA resources.

 

Regulations must not impose unnecessary costs or unnecessarily hinder levels of

 

participation in aviation and its capacity for growth.

 

• Aviation safety regulations should conform to the framework for the classification of

 

aircraft operations, and align with other standards and practices, adopted by the

 

International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), unless differences are necessary to

 

address particular features peculiar to the Australian aviation environment and

 

those differences can be justified on safety-risk grounds. On the same basis, the

 

aviation safety regulations should be consistent with international best practice, as

 

reflected in the standards and practices of other leading aviation countries.

 

• Recognising that international standards and practices vary, CASA will align its

 

regulations with those that effectively address identified safety risks in the most costeffective

 

manner.

 

• Where it is appropriate to do so, aviation safety regulations are to be drafted to

 

specify intended safety outcomes. Where known or likely safety risks cannot be

 

addressed effectively utilising an outcome-based approach (in whole or in part), more

 

prescriptive requirements will be specified.

 

• In developing aviation safety regulations, CASA must consult appropriately with

 

industry in an open and transparent manner ensuring that all communication is clear,

 

timely and effective.

 

• Subject to the applicable drafting requirements, CASA will strive to ensure aviation

 

safety regulations are drafted as clearly and concisely as possible.

 

• Where practicable, aviation safety regulations should be developed within a three-tier

 

framework, comprising the Civil Aviation Act, the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations

 

and Manuals of Standards.

 

• Supportive advisory and guidance materials, including other acceptable means of

 

compliance with regulatory requirements, will be promulgated and disseminated in

 

conjunction with new and amended regulations, having regard to the time when

 

compliance with new or amended regulations will be required.

 

DAS Directives

 

01/2015

 

DAS DIRECTIVE

 

Records Manager – D15/462765

 

01/2016

 

DAS Directive No. 1/2015 3 of 3

 

Application of Aviation Safety Regulations

• In accordance with the Civil Aviation Act, the safety of air navigation is the most

 

important consideration for CASA in performing its functions and exercising its

 

powers.

 

• Consistent with that obligation, the principle of legality and the explicit requirements of

 

the civil aviation legislation in any particular case, CASA must always have regard to

 

all relevant considerations when exercising discretionary powers, including the cost

 

 

and other burdens involved in the application of regulatory requirements.

 

• This cannot and does not mean that CASA must demonstrate that, in exercising its

 

discretionary powers under the regulations in any given case, it has adopted or will

 

 

adopt a course of action involving the lowest cost to, or least adverse impact on, the

 

person or persons affected by that action.

 

• What it does mean is that, where a person who is or will be affected by CASA’s

 

exercise of discretionary powers under the regulations convincingly demonstrates,

 

on evidence, that:

 

- the same safety outcome contemplated by the applicable regulatory

 

 

requirement can be achieved on another, more cost-effective and/or otherwise

 

less onerous basis;

 

- the person is able and willing to adopt and give meaningful effect to that

 

 

alternative approach to compliance;

 

- the alternative approach proposed can be implemented fully and effectively in

 

 

a timely fashion, having regard to the interests of safety;

 

- the adoption and implementation of such an alternative approach by CASA

 

 

would not involve unreasonable additional oversight or administrative

 

responsibilities on CASA’s part; and

 

- no other persons would be adversely or unfairly affected by the adoption of

 

 

that alternative approach,

 

CASA will entertain a reasonable proposal for the adoption of another approach and,

 

in the absence of good reason not to do so, CASA will adopt such an alternative

 

approach.

 

Signed

 

Mark Skidmore AM

 

Director of Aviation Safety

 

Date: 28 January 2016

Keith, I think this fits better into the thread "New Regulation for sport and recreational aviation (Part 149)

I sort of confirms what I was referring to there, and how difficult it is to plot a path that works, when you have a complicated operating system.

The creating 10,000 pilots thing is really about whether an RAA statement is true or not.

Even the Part 149 thread is currently not getting traffic on the regulation, but what a Spin Doctor said, and various peoples' opinions on that, CASA in general etc. so it's not worth putting much effort into trying to help to remove snags until everything settles down, and Part 149 can be looked at in terms of your posting.

While it seems complicated at first, once the issues are charted and a go/nogo approach is used, you can get a pathway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When the snags have been removed, Part 149 will be in force and it will be too late. Private lawmaking, private kangaroo courts for alleged trangressions with none of the usual legal protections and you'd be better off in GA. At least for power flying that is an option. Pity about gliding.

I saw the ABC news segment on the pilot shortage. What do they expect? Aviation in this country has been made so expensive and difficult so fewer people are doing it, airfields look like WW2 prison camps complete with barbed wire and demands to see your documents. Pilots are all treated as potential terrorists. Not a friendly atmosphere. As a result of fewer people doing it, the infrastructure doesn't get replaced when it reaches end of life (Avgas bowsers). Air "Services" won't NOTAM unavailability. It would be nice if that actually was announced on the area frequency that we are forced to endure listening to, just like weather changes.

We now have a pilot shortage - surprise! Regional airlines are now poaching GA flying instructors which cuts off the supply of new pilots, makes getting an AFR more difficult etc etc. We really are swirling down the toilet bowl.

All predictable and predicted by such as Dick Smith, Boyd Munro and others.

Meanwhile RAAus blows its horn about creating 10,000 new pilots.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When the snags have been removed, Part 149 will be in force and it will be too late.

If no one addresses the issues and corrects them, yes that's what will happen. Not so long ago Victoria's premier gliding facility was under threat, needing a major effort from its participants.

 

I saw the ABC news segment on the pilot shortage. What do they expect?

The cry on the GA forums for the past decade has been about the scarcity of job opportunities; looks like it has turned around.

 

Aviation in this country has been made so expensive and difficult so fewer people are doing it, airfields look like WW2 prison camps complete with barbed wire and demands to see your documents. Pilots are all treated as potential terrorists. Not a friendly atmosphere. As a result of fewer people doing it, the infrastructure doesn't get replaced when it reaches end of life (Avgas bowsers).

I just made a quick check of the annual movements at Moorabbin; pretty stable, about 650 movement a day; a lot of rural would be quiet because of drought conditions though.EXX0038A.thumb.JPG.57c1b0be368e6579948e4c5e9d380f9b.JPG

 

Air "Services" won't NOTAM unavailability. It would be nice if that actually was announced on the area frequency that we are forced to endure listening to, just like weather changes.
Contact them.

 

Regional airlines are now poaching GA flying instructors which cuts off the supply of new pilots, makes getting an AFR more difficult etc etc. We really are swirling down the toilet bowl.
Historically the career path has been: CPL > GA Instructor to build hours and experience > Regional airlines or charter to build more commercial experience > RH Airline seat > LH Seat, over a span of many years. What you are saying looks like the normal pattern faster until any shortage is filled.

 

All predictable and predicted by such as Dick Smith, Boyd Munro and others.

Always check for yourself out in the workplaces; sometimes strategic statements are made.

 

Meanwhile RAAus blows its horn about creating 10,000 new pilots.

We've arrived at the subject of this thread; what are your thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say if the "black hats" are right, then why bother then, its all over. Except my own experience of purely recreational flying is quite different. The airfield I fly from was in 2007 when I commenced flying in this location just a field with dodgy grass strips, now it has a fantastic sealed runway and the other grass runway is well maintained (thanks Gary) There are new fuel facilities with mogas, avgas jet fuel. Regular visits from all sorts of interesting aircraft as well as resident interesting aircraft such as an AN2 and an TS-11 Iskra Jet. The flying school I hire from seems to be doing ok (if aircraft availability is anything to go by). I regularly get posts through facebook with pictures of the latest students who have gone solo or attained their certificate or an endorsement etc. Many of them are younger people including younger teens which I find upliffting. I would love to post a link from Win News about a story that was recently filmed at my flying school about an autistic 15-year-old who is learning to fly but it is a FB link. I at least found it inspiring.

 

For me the situation seems to be this, the system is going to fall down and at some time in the future and I will not be able to do my fortnightly aircraft flight in a hired aircraft. On this strength of this, I, about 5 years ago canceled my plans to buy and build an aircraft kit because someone I trusted convinced me that the system to was about to collapse. It turns out I could have had at least 5 years of aircraft ownership (and the importer could have made some dollars) before this inevitable breakdown of aviation occurs.

 

Often when I am dragging the shool aircraft out of the hanger I will see someone watching, often a young person. I know some of you will think I am being dishonest but I tell them all about learning to fly, especially the challenges which are to do with learning to fly to navigate in the air and also to navigate around the annoying rules and regs. IT IS WORTH IT and if I was as pessimistic as some I would do the dignified thing and look for doing else to do.

 

As far as RAaus. don't just whinge, if you know whats wrong and think you know how to fix it then stand for election.

  • Like 2
  • Caution 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's about my take on the current industry Octave and I'm looking forward to being able to hire brand new GA aircraft like we used to be able to do. When you look at the Moorabbin figures I quoted, that location just needs a couple of entrepreneurs like Bib Stillwell and Arthur Schutt and it will start to buzz again.

 

I'm not sure we aren't just being trolled away from the subject matter of this thread.

  • Funny 1

Share this post


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

×