is the season to be
merry? This might
have been so a few weeks ago,
but it’s a very doubtful motto
for Australian general
aviation. More like “a merry-
go-round ” that has been the sad fate
of GA since the Federal Government
decided to distance itself from aviation
by transferring departmental power
to an independent statutory body
many years ago.
We rejoice that the Aviation
Safety Regulation Review
recommendations have been largely
accepted by government. We have
had a good airing of industry
frustrations and exposed the
extreme distrust between CASA
and us lowly and ignorant subjects
in the GA community.
Unfortunately, re-reading the
government response I note that it
is riddled with back-out positions.
This is not surprising because there
is little doubt that CASA wrote it.
Looking with jaundiced eyes, having
dealt with CASA for more than
40 years, you can bet your rudder
pedals they will barely move a
millimetre unless required to do so
by law and Minister Truss.
Quoting the Government response:
“The Government has requested
that most of the functional scope
issues raised in the Report bethe subject of further detailed
examination by aviation agencies.”
Then regarding a proposed State
Safety Program (SSP):
“Government expects to receive the
new SSP for its consideration by the
end of 2015 after an agency, industry
and public consultation process.”
Pull the other one, It is 25 years
and hundreds of millions of dollars,
and CASA has still not finished therules re-write, clearly indicating it is
not capable of such a task.
Throughout the government’s
response there are a number
of escape clauses. At least four
“however” back-out positions, no
less than 14 “agree in-principle”
statements and three “notes these
recommendations.”
The independent Civil Aviation
Authority, later CASA, wrote
to me as an operator way back in
April 1989, quote:
“... CAA is to adopt more business-
like procedures in its regulation of
the aviation industry, with a view
to reducing requirements, and their
associated costs, to a minimum.”Yes, well, how amusing.
Then Dick Smith did lead
the CAA with sensible reforms,
but they lapsed rapidly after he
left the chairmanship in 1992.
Yet another government safety
review was instigated in 1995.
Dick felt compelled to submit a
comprehensive paper which included
criticisms about the CAA under
these headings, in part: “Make jobsregulations”, “Make jobs airspace”,
“Make jobs safety regulation” and
“Deceptive and misleading conduct”.
CASA will remain a self-serving
regulator skilled in deflecting
criticism while maintaining its many
feathered bed. The CASA regime
is too costly and the headaches of
compliance are too great. CASA
has become a law unto itself, we’ve
all heard ad nauseum the emotive
“safety” justifications from CASA.
Even Canberra lost its last flying
school four years ago. Dozens if not
hundreds of other flying schools and
charter operators have also closed;
the numbers are hidden.
However, CASA’s approach is inreality counter to safety let alone the
well-being of the nation. Less flying
means fewer experienced pilots,
instructors and maintenance personnel.
Airline pilots are now on the 457 work
visa list. Who is flying your airliner
these days? Low fuel sales mean higher
costs; refuelling companies have de-
commissioned dozens of refuelling
points Australia-wide thus reducing
the options for safety of flight.
Only legislated reforms can cause
the re-birth of GA, as opposed to
the government’s “maybe” response
conditional on various CASA
management policies and personalities.
So what would real reform look like?1
First and foremost: amend
the Act to include efficiency
and industry health.2
A biennial statement of
government policy for GA.3
An airport policy designed
to protect aviation and
allow airport freehold so aviation
businesses can invest.4
Allow individual instructors
to instruct independently,
without the super-expensive Air
Operators Certificate. Works well
in the USA where some 70% of
pilots are trained in this way.5
Remove the onerous and unjust
Strict Liability provisions in
the regulations and commission the
New Zealand CAA to give us a set
of practical and intelligible rules.6
Weight increase the low weight
category. Thousands of Australian
aviators have migrated to this category
because of its more rational rule
set. Aircraft of 600 kg total weight
including crew, fuel, powerplant and
equipment leaves little for a capable
airframe. This is an anathema to safe
and sensible engineering principles.
I’d like to see Minister Truss, a tallish
gentleman, attempting to fold into
some of these very light aircraft.
Progress would be freedom to fly
with simple rules. Progress, innovation
and free enterprise will achieve better
safety and jobs contributing to the
greater good. Write to your MP.
Good luck you poor aviators of
today, but I don’t think you’ll ever
know what a buzz it used to be.High Hopes or Soft Soaps?
SANDY REITH
Progress would be freedom to fly
with simple rules.Short Final
Aviation consultant and identity Sandy Reith says the government’s
reponse to the Forsyth Report is not as golden as it glitters.82 australianflying.com.au
AUSTRALIAN FLYING March – April 2015LEFT: Sandy Reith believes real
aviation reform would include
a weight increase to low-weight
category aircraft.