AOPA's Project Eureka -- one year on

[aplund]

Well, not being driven to finish training, I managed to sit down and read the Project Eureka report that AOPA Australia put out almost one year ago (reference: http://aopa.com.au/assets/587/EUREKA_130416.pdf).

 

At the time it seemed to have the effect of widening the gap between General and Recreational Aviation (at least that was the impression on these forums). But me and my hip pocket, just currently, cannot help but agree with at least the spirit of the document.

 

I'm not 100% convinced about the quantitative benefits of some of the recommendations in the document. I'm also unsure as to the rationale of the some of the recommendations (such as privatizing the monopoly services of ASA). But the content in it has helped me understand the reasons behind the enormous difference in aircraft costs between countries. Also, the bit about the evolution of controlled and uncontrolled airspace in Australia is actually a great read.

 

The question though is has this "project" made any difference in a positive way over the last year? From my point of view all I see is more inertia than ever.

 

 

[Yenn]

Was that Galloping inertia? If so it is typical of our governmental bodies.

 

I hadn't seen this project by Aopa before today, having cancelled my membership several years ago due to their lack of forward planning, but I will read this and maybe see that Aopa has changed. Unfortunately I see no chance of CASA changing.

 

 

[kgwilson]

Unfortunately I see no chance of CASA changing.

And that in a nutshell is the problem with private & recreational aviation in Australia.

 

 

[turboplanner]

And that in a nutshell is the problem with private & recreational aviation in Australia.

CASA is a Safety Authority; the taxpayers are never going to vote to have their money used to promote recreational activities.

 

 

[aplund]

Unfortunately I see no chance of CASA changing.

It's still unclear to me what CASA's MO actually is. It feels like it's safety at all costs, hence the making of rules without regard to the costs both monetarily and not. They really need some objective quantitative measure for the success of their operations.

 

Under the current system, if CASA makes some rule that puts huge costs on operators then it will only ever be a good thing from their point of view as it will mean less GA/Recreational flying hours hence less "risk". But the proper metric should be the risks per hour of flying, or per cycle, or some other normalizing factor.

 

Its interesting to note in the report the huge reduction in aviation activities on the east coast major cities (not sure why Adelaide has maintained their activity). But has this reduction in operations improved the risk per hour of flying? I'd love to know.

 

(I can see another weekend research project brewing.)

 

 

[fly_tornado]

CASA is like most aviation regulators in that its been captured by the big airlines.

 

 

[visy]

I've been reading a lot of grumbling about CASA choking GA and being a govt safety organisation that doesnt surprise me. But for the benefit of my newbie self can someone explain exactly what regs have driven up the cost?

 

 

[fly_tornado]

SIDS in Cessna, I think we are the only country going down this path for corrosion inspections in Cessna 100 and 200 series of aircraft

 

 

[visy]

SIDS in Cessna, I think we are the only country going down this path for corrosion inspections in Cessna 100 and 200 series of aircraft

Just had a look at the CASA site for this.

Questions and comments on Cessna SIDs | Civil Aviation Safety Authority

 

Up to $20,000 for the inspection.....DAMN that is steep.!

 

 

[turboplanner]

Just had a look at the CASA site for this.Questions and comments on Cessna SIDs | Civil Aviation Safety Authority

Up to $20,000 for the inspection.....DAMN that is steep.!

Yes it can be, but there's been a reluctance within the GA community to pay around $370,000.00 for a new Cessna 172, even though, in terms of weekly income, the cost is not a lot different to 1960.

 

SIDS allows people to continue flying, in some cases 60 year old airframes with 8,000 hours plus stress on them with the weak points removed and a similar level of airframe safety to a current era airframe.

 

Without SIDS, some people would just fly the old airframes until something let go.

 

 

[aplund]

Yes it can be, but there's been a reluctance within the GA community to pay around $370,000.00 for a new Cessna 172, even though, in terms of weekly income, the cost is not a lot different to 1960.SIDS allows people to continue flying, in some cases 60 year old airframes with 8,000 hours plus stress on them with the weak points removed and a similar level of airframe safety to a current era airframe.

 

Without SIDS, some people would just fly the old airframes until something let go.

I would like to understand more why decommissioning an air-frame isn't something that happens more often. With motor vehicles it becomes a no-brainer when you are driving scrap metal and having to pay through the nose for maintenance to just keep the thing running.

 

For aircraft this same decision making process doesn't seem to work. Perhaps the depreciation is completely different. Never-the-less, the desire to extend the lifetime of aircraft is wrapped up with the issues outlined from this report. If you have an expected return on investment, then the hidden costs of regulation increase more than expected over time, you will want to try and squeeze more out of the original capital outlay.

 

But just as a symptomatic exercise, compare the percentage do you see of 40+ year old cars on the road vs the percentage of 40+ year old air-frames departing you local GA airport.

 

 

[ave8rr]

SIDS in Cessna, I think we are the only country going down this path for corrosion inspections in Cessna 100 and 200 series of aircraft

NZ also. SIDS are mandatory..

 

 

[fly_tornado]

But just as a symptomatic exercise, compare the percentage do you see of 40+ year old cars on the road vs the percentage of 40+ year old air-frames departing you local GA airport.

since the aussie dollar hit US90c Australians have been importing hundreds of muscle cars from the US every year, mostly old rust buckets with bad brakes

 

 

[coljones]

since the aussie dollar hit US90c Australians have been importing hundreds of muscle cars from the US every year, mostly old rust buckets with bad brakes

That might have been the case 4 years ago when the $A/$US was leaning our way. These days The rate is around $US0.72 to $A1.00. ie a $US14,400 car will cost $A20,000 now as opposed to just $A14,400 4 years ago. At the current exchange rate you can't even buy a dose of cold from the US.

 

 

[poteroo]

But for the benefit of my newbie self can someone explain exactly what regs have driven up the cost?

CASR Part 61, CASR Part 141 for sure. Trying to understand and comply with Part 61 has proven a headache for flying schools over the 4 years since it was announced. Despite CASA having allocated a 'task force' to deal with issues arising from a poorly thought out, over-the-top document - they still cannot give a clear answer to many questions. It has cost us heaps in lost time.

 

The other costly CASA decisions have been where CASA, in its' wisdom, decides to change the rules, eg the current saga of frequency use in Class G airspace. These thought bubbles end up costing industry huge amounts in time and effort because we can't just sit on our hands and hope the CASA group will see 'sense'. We know from hard experience that unless we respond, and respond both vigorously and promptly, quite ridiculous rules become established by default.

 

This isn't any new CASA activity. They have been fiddling with regulation for so many years that we'd laugh if it wasn't so serious.

 

AOPA has been doing a great job and my 54 years of membership is finally paying off. Ben Morgan deserves praise from all the aviation industry for his public performances in explaining the issues. Great job!

 

happy days,