What the CEO said.

[wags]

Gympie Aero Club had a good roll-up for the dinner with John McCormick, the CASA CEO.

 

I promised I would report back to this forum and so here is a summary of what was discussed during the evening.

 

Right from the beginning of his speech he made it very clear that he would answer any questions and also stay there until everyone had asked the questions they wanted answered.

 

Listening to his speech it is very obvious that John McCormick is very much aware of the importance of RAAus and the part it plays in not only training pilots for the future needs of Australian aviation, but for providing affordable aviation for the average person. He stated that of the approx 2 million hours flown annually by Australian registered aircraft (that’s equivalent to about 12 days of hours flown in the USA) over 25% are directly related to training at the basic levels that RAAus/GA supports. He stated that Australia is far from setting world-wide standards when it comes to regulations.

 

“We will not kill GA or RAAus or the aviation industry in this country will die and that will not be good for Australia and is not what people would want”.

 

He further commented… “CASA is not in the business of putting people out of business. We are not here to stop people flying but we can’t get bogged down in consultation hoping to lead to a consensus. As safety regulators we will do what we have to do under the Civil Aviation Act to protect air safety. We’ll do what we should do, not what we’d like to do.”

 

He spent last weekend at Bundaberg flying various variants of the Jabiru because… “You cannot make regulations unless you understand something about the subject you are intending to write regulations for”.

 

What did he have to say about various subjects?

 

“RAAus is not ready for CTA and 760 kgs just yet. Not that it won’t come eventually, but a lot of more important matters need to be attended to before CASA can look at these two things. CASA will be looking at them with duty of care in mind. We will not write regulations that some Judge down the track will say… CASA you wrote this but you really meant this. We will get the regulations right and to suit the situation.”

 

1. CTA. In a nutshell when RAAus pilots accept that all aircraft must be fitted with radios for the safety of other airspace users, regardless of where they operate, then the subject of CTA will eventually be revisited. Fitting of radios will be made compulsory in the very near future regardless of where or how you operate. He doesn’t accept the argument…. “It is too expensive to carry radios”, especially when you look at the money spent on communication technology in the average household. He mentioned… “100% of Trikes have a radio facility, even if it is just to talk to each other.”

 

There is also no doubt that in the future if you want CTA access, then every aircraft that goes into CTA is going to need a transponder and I understood from what he said this will also become a regulation. This is already the case in NZ and some other countries. He also made it clear that if you are thinking of fitting a transponder in the near future then make it a “Mode S” transponder. He said… “This will not be for some time yet, but we will be looking at it – we have to!”

 

Not only will we need transponders for CTA access but… “They will have to be checked for accuracy and certified or ATC will not accept you in CTA”. There is no doubt if you want these freedoms then we will have to comply or put very simply - they will be denied.

 

2. VFR Lanes. He understands the problems that occur with RAAus not being able to access VFR lanes, but… “How do we write that into regulations? When we do, it will be for all pilots, not just those currently fitted with radios. It is a big issue that will require some considerable time to sort out. In the meantime a PPL will get you through CTA if you really have the need.”

 

3. 760 kgs. “760 kgs just doesn’t fit the regulations and we can’t get it to fit in the current form!” It will be looked at again in due course and assessed in a “measured manner”. Duty of care is big problem here as he sees it.

 

4. ASIC Cards. It was made clear that this is not, and never has been a CASA responsibility. “ASIC’s were not in our plan, it came from Aviation Security. Hopefully the ASIC as we know it will die”. He stated that a good window of opportunity exists in the very near future (May 2010?) to revisit the whole question. He went on to say… “We are currently looking at other ways of achieving the same outcome within the existing framework of licencing”.

 

5. Alcohol testing. The question was asked… “Why can’t we have a beer fridge in our hangar without the threat of prosecution?” Again there is a window of opportunity to review the current regulations and program as it will shortly run out of funding by the Federal Government. His opinion… “You should be able to have a few beers around the B-B-Q at your hangar and not run the fear of prosecution because it is supposedly affecting safety or security!”

 

Other matters discussed were – GAAP procedures, the closing of airports and airport facilities such as runways (not a direct CASA responsibility, but it is of great concern and the government is looking at these things very closely) and the ageing GA fleet. “These are all matters that need consideration and decisions to be made when time and man power allows.”

 

This post is getting too long so I trust it has given you some answers to the things you all had doubts about or were unsure of the facts.

 

Yes - CTA and 760 kgs are both “dead” - for the time being anyway.

 

I’m planning on renewing my PPL early in the New Year ‘cause I don’t like flying over hostile terrain.

 

 

[Tomo]

Sounds like it was a worth while evening... I like it that he has been over to Bundy to fly in a Jabiru, show's that he has interest in our sport. Even if it was to 'suss it out'.

 

 

[Guest Qwerty]

Wags, you rpost is MUCH appreciated (thankyou) and was not getting too long. Please continue, if there is more info.

 

Cheers, Qwerty

 

 

[Thx1137]

Well, considering his mandate I wouldn't think that there is anything there that would be a surprise. My hope is that they just don't make our lives unnecessarily harder. There is quite a range of different opinions on what "unnecessarily harder" means of course!

 

One thing I want is their reasoning behind their decisions. I think it helps us all to understand the issues better. The only decision I have seen so far that they made said almost nothing of "why".

 

Steven.

 

 

[Admin]

Thanks Wags and I know everyone here are truly thankful for your time and effort in reporting back - we should all support these types of initiatives that you and the team at your club have done to have this event.

 

Call me an optimist but the 760 and CTA to me are not dead but rather lie in waiting for the board to get to work. One of the things the board are doing is working hard to get the Association competence to a level that CASA can rely on to handle these inititives in a way that CASA are comfortable with allowing them to happen. In the interim if you do want 760 or CTA then PPL is the only way to go...in the short term :big_grin:

 

 

[Spin]

Thanks for that Wags - interesting. Overall sounds like a positive event and I am particularly pleased to hear that the regulator has taken the time to take a closer look at our passion via the Jab factory, hats off to them in this regard too.

 

About the only things that I have some issues with are the reported comments regarding CTA and VFR lanes - afraid I don't follow why all RA Aus aircraft have to be radio equipped so that some of them (probably a small percentage of the total at that), can make use of controlled airspace. Simple really, if you want to use controlled airspace, "you will have an endorsement and fly a suitably equipped aircraft (radio and transponder)". They are really two separate issues which CASA seem to be trying to link and ram their own agenda on the radio issue through.

 

That said, I do have some sympathy for the radio issue and personally wouldn't consider flying without, but that is probably a reflection of the busier airspace I inhabit and my own background.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Personally I cant see what the radio issue is. These days they are cheap and run for a quite reasonable timeframe on rechargeables if power is the issue. I too, wouldnt be caught without one, no matter where I fly, As said, if 100% of trikes have them then there is little reason for others to say its too hard.

 

Andy

 

P.S while I too can see the difference between CTA access and just having a radio the common thread is safety. I wont be calling foul if they force mandatory carriage and use through because if I were da king I'd be doing exactly the same thing.

 

 

[Tracktop]

Personally I cant see what the radio issue is. These days they are cheap .

And even cheaper today only if you look at the Clear Prop special

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

Thanks for the report Wags, it all sounds like he at least has a fairly realistic view towards us, which is probabily a bit more than most except Dick Smith had in the past. Well done.

 

 

[Guest Qwerty]

OK, radios....... then its a small step to requiring full ADSB and TCAS with EXACTLY the same logic. The fact that the $ keep getting higher and the complexity keeps getting higher and this doesnt seem to phase anyone,......... and the inexorable slide towards full GA requirements continues.

 

And along with all of this WILL be a complacency and a reliance on the radio for SA instead of looking. Right now everyone looks because there is a very real possibility of a non radio equiped a/c in the air with us. But give it 5 years with manditory radios and no-one will bother looking because we WILL become reliant on the radio.

 

What about poor Ozzie and pilots like him, he just wants to fly around the back blocks in a minimum aircraft without any bells and whistles.

 

Am I the only person here that sees a wider perspective on this issue?

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

You dont get much more minimum that a 95.10 single seat trike. The issues around noise, radio use and life are all resolved hese day's, perhaps the only reasonable excuss might be some old form of motor where the entire ignition system wasnt designed for radio friendliness.

 

With regard to what next.... Yep I would support those other things being made mandatory if they could be had for the same cost of a radio system and where similarly easy to use. In otherwords the benefits it brings, is greater than the cost of bringing it. As things are now, other than radio that is not the case.

 

As for becoming too dependant on radio for SA.... perhaps you could argue that if everybody had to have and use a radio everybodys SA would in fact be better assuming that the ability to hear and comprehend is better than the chances of see and be seen

 

Andy

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

I see your point Querty, besides operating without a radio does prepare you for the time when it fails. And what about the guys out bush, most of the time they're on UHF anyway. To make them use a VHF would simply mean they'll be talking to themselves.........................

 

 

[slartibartfast]

Thanks for the report Wags. Much appreciated.

 

At least he is thinking of us. That's a step forward.

 

 

[Guest Crezzi]

OK, radios....... then its a small step to requiring full ADSB and TCAS with EXACTLY the same logic. The fact that the $ keep getting higher and the complexity keeps getting higher and this doesnt seem to phase anyone,......... and the inexorable slide towards full GA requirements continues.And along with all of this WILL be a complacency and a reliance on the radio for SA instead of looking. Right now everyone looks because there is a very real possibility of a non radio equiped a/c in the air with us. But give it 5 years with manditory radios and no-one will bother looking because we WILL become reliant on the radio.

 

What about poor Ozzie and pilots like him, he just wants to fly around the back blocks in a minimum aircraft without any bells and whistles.

 

Am I the only person here that sees a wider perspective on this issue?

Spot on Qwerty :thumb_up: And following Mode-S / ADSB airspace charging will be next

 

John

 

PS thanks for the report Wags

 

 

[Guest Qwerty]

.... Yep I would support those other things being made mandatory if they could be had for the same cost of a radio system....

But they are the same cost, just some money. A TSOd radio will cost you about $2,000. ADSB will only be a few thousand dollars, TCAS will simmilarly only be a few thousand dollars, mode s Transponder, a few thousand. the list is endless where do you you suppose to draw the line if you dont want to draw it at common sense.

 

Here is a fact. If radios are mandated in all aircraft, SA and therefore safety will suffer.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Here is a fact. If radios are mandated in all aircraft, SA and therefore safety will suffer.

So, if its a fact, as opposed to say, an emotive outburst, you'll have no trouble providing a definitive reference that backs that assertion. The FACT that a radio is required in CTA, among other things must be due to the need for less SA in CTA than class G or E.....

 

P.S Mode S, ADSB and TCAS if done appropriately in Australia will only require the one set of equipment because they all revolve around an extension of Mode S SSR.

 

At present I believe (and may be wrong) that charges within the GA realm all relate to the services used. As we RAA critters don't use any of the services then providing "User Pays" remains the founding cornerstone I don't see that anything will change (Big disclaimer here, that relies on government doing what is logically the correct thing to do...occassionally that even happens...)

 

Andy

 

Anyway, back to the original poster... Thanks for the work that the local team put into the night, we now have some FACTS to work with.

 

 

[Vev]

In terms of access to CTA and McCormick statement suggesting we obtain a PPL if we have a need to access a CTA environment.

 

 

Ok this will work, but it seems to me there is many and varied interpretations on what it takes to transition from a RAA Certificate to PPL…. The forum is full of personal experiences with no two sounding the same when it comes to a license transition.

 

 

It would be really useful if the RAA could formally agree with CASA what we need to complete to qualify for a PPL.

 

 

Regards

 

Jack

 

 

Ps. Wags, many thanks for your report very good of you to provide the feedback.

 

 

[Guest Crezzi]

Ok this will work, but it seems to me there is many and varied interpretations on what it takes to transition from a RAA Certificate to PPL…. The forum is full of personal experiences with no two sounding the same when it comes to a license transition.It would be really useful if the RAA could formally agree with CASA what we need to complete to qualify for a PPL.

 

Regards

 

Jack

 

Ps. Wags, many thanks for your report very good of you to provide the feedback.

No need for RAAus involvement - it is clearly & unambiguously defined in CAR 1988 5.84 para 2

 

Cheers

 

John

 

 

[Guest Qwerty]

So, if its a fact, as opposed to say, an emotive outburst, you'll have no trouble providing a definitive reference that backs that assertion. The FACT that a radio is required in CTA, among other things must be due to the need for less SA in CTA than class G or E......

The fact "If radios are mandated in all aircraft, SA and therefore safety will suffer.", comes from simple logic with no need to reference secondary sources.

 

There are several aspects to this issue and you will have to keep in mind all of them at once to gain an understanding.

 

Radios in CTA work (to improve safety) because there is a third party check on a) their function, b) that the information broadcast was recieved as sent and c) they are backed up by radar survalance and monitoring.

 

If there is a radio failur in CTA there is quick recognition, confirmation and an established set of procedures to get the effected aircraft on the ground safely and clear of other traffic.

 

In an uncontroled environment, there is no third party monitoring and no way of dealing with a radio failure in traffic.

 

But here is the real problem. human nature dictates that pilots will become dependant on radio information for SA and will not keep watch. This must threrefore be a higher risk situation.

 

 

[Tracktop]

What about poor Ozzie

Ozzie is in my future flying area ( when I get my XC) So I want him to have a radio so he can hear when I am a coming

 

And thanks for good feedback Wags

 

 

[Guest Qwerty]

Ozzie is in my future flying area ( when I get my XC) So I want him to have a radio so he can hear when I am a coming

Please explain. Just exactly how is he going to hear if you are comming. According to the regulations, you are required only to keep a listening watch on the appropriate frequency. So unless you intend to clutter the frequency with un-neccessary, random, usless position /intention reports to no=one in particular, poor Ozzie won't hear a thing. And if there are mandated radios he will be smuggly sitting in his cockpit not looking out because he has a radio......good luck with that.:thumb_up:

 

 

[Thx1137]

But here is the real problem. human nature dictates that pilots will become dependant on radio information for SA and will not keep watch. This must threrefore be a higher risk situation.

I would love to see evidence of that! If it is human nature then I take it that that means most of us that are OCTA and have a radio do not keep watch!? Even if that were true I would bet that if you took the radios out they still wouldn't keep watch.

 

TCAS, maybe. Radio, I don't agree.

 

 

[Guest Qwerty]

Thx, I speak from experience and if you talk to any GA pilot who is honest they will tell you the same thing. There is an almost irresistable urge to "relax and let the controller do it" when flying in CTA. I regularly have to remind myself that I am PIC an I need to maintain full SA AND lookout. the same thing WILL occour with mandated radios. There will be a tendancy to rely more and more on the radio as a primary source of situational information and less and less on actually looking out the window. This is not what I think, this is what I know.

 

I am far happier flying around now while everyone is looking around for aircraft that may be flying perfectly legally without a radio because thay will be more likely to see me than when they are fat, dumb and happy in thier cockpits with their radios and not looking out.

 

 

[Guest Qwerty]

Further, can we at least try to maintain a modicum of consistancy.

 

Allegators have green eyes

 

my cat has green eyes

 

Therefore, my cat is an allegator............sound familiar?????

 

 

[turboplanner]

FYI you guys, Tasmanians can only do one thing at a time, so - radio on, lookout off.