Jim McDowall

8 hours ago, old man emu said:

Dealing with airport noise is itself a headache for airport operators. The Bankstown Airport Master Plan Chapter 5  Page 43 and following goes right into this subject.

 

https://smafiles.blob.core.windows.net/balmasterplan2019/191128_Bankstown Airport Masterplan-Final_C_web.pdf

 

Studies of aircraft noise impacts presented for Bankstown Airport were carried out using the United States Federal Aviation Administration-approved Integrated Noise Model (INM) Version 7.0d. This internationally recognised, computer-based noise simulation model calculates contours from an analysis of the contribution the various defined aircraft and their operations have on the overall noise emissions from the Airport. The resulting noise ‘footprint’ can then be used to assess the relative impacts that different aircraft and operational procedures have on the surrounding area.

I had a look over the Parafield Master plan and the majority of the noise above "permissible" levels is over the airport and the industrial area to the east. If any houses are affected they are probably in an industrial zone and those poor bastards are probably copping complaints as well. Some people are never satisfied - even though they end up sitting on their front verandah in their bogan couches complaining that there are no jobs.

The good news is that aircraft noise is specifically exempted from the South Australian Local Nuisance and Litter Control Act 2016.

10 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

even I'm aware that hundreds of illegal flights have taken place during the C-19 Pandemic,

In the liberated stated of South Australia flying was never illegal, unlike that place called Danistan

From SA EPA fact sheet:

Noise from domestic premises can include music and party noise, band and drum practice, trail bikes, revving motor vehicles, hammering, and other non-mechanical construction noise. When it interferes with the enjoyment of an area by any person living in or otherwise using it, the noise becomes environmental harm. Due to the nature of these incidents they do not require a noise measurement and can be subjectively assessed by an authorised officer taking into account the time of day and background noise level. SA Police are authorised officers for the purpose of making subjective assessments and in many instances, subject to work priorities, can make this assessment especially if the noise is occurring during the evening, night or early morning. If the complaint is about a machine for which maximum permissible noise levels and times for use have been set, noise levels will need to be measured by an authorised officer. The SA Police will only undertake subjective noise assessments.

Clearly un-enforced

I live on the eastern flight path into Parafield and the lack of traffic has been really noticeable since March. My late mother in law lived on the western approach and enjoyed seeing the aircraft fly over, particularly at night - she found it somehow comforting that all was well in the air (world). 

NZ is different because it is so small they are probably all related!

Same problem exists in SA's Country Fire Service which is top heavy with ex-defence types - lots of new toys and tech to play firefighter with, but no attention paid to the basics - ignition + fuel = fire. Roadside vegetation must be sacred as nothing is ever done to reduce fuel load on roadsides but this is where 50% of the fires start.

As their (CASA's) primary focus is safety and safety is such an indefinite term - it can mean different things to different people - any regulation can be made and justified on the basis of "safety". Just look at the way OHS has invaded our schools in ways that my childhood pursuits would be unrecognisable to todays schoolchildren. Ball sports on asphalt - banned, teachers unwilling to run afterschool sports because of the "risks" - to them , not the kids.

Question is "how safe is safe?" and when the people making the rules are rarely practitioners or think making rules will solve a perceived problem, we get what we've got.

Most VH private fliers have very little or no contact with CASA. They pay no annual licence or membership fees and annuals can be modest. Granted the maintenance concessions(?) may have to carried over but EASA now has owner maintenance for private ops aircraft upto 2760kg and the Canadians have had owner maintenance for a couple of decades without any identifiable issues. The drivers licence medical is still an issue but the international evidence is that a Class 2 medical proves nothing - they have room to move - they have to explain to Avmed and their accredited practitioners that they are no longer needed, at least not for Class 2 meds.

It is important to remember that we all fly in the same airspace and that the majority of the aircraft operated under RAAus are as capable as any bottom end VH aircraft (eg C150,172, PA140/160 etc.). RAAus flight training has been recognised as sufficient to enable RAAus pilots to transition to a RPL licence with a flight review and take their endorsements with the transition.

It is also true that CASA approves the operations, technical and other manuals. These manuals are a distillation of the aviation law as it applies to RAAus operators and aircraft. In effect they are CASA's manuals.

The truth is  that CASA uses RAAus as its proxy and imposes an un-necessary cost burden on the members of RAAus.

Lets face it RAAus would not exist without the CAO requirement that we have to be members of RAAus to fly. Time to follow the South Africans and bring recreational flying back under CASA's control. As Jonathon Aleck said in the RRAT estimates hearing on Tuesday, CASA can direct RAAus to do things which means that the facade of RAAus is just administration by CASA - RAAus directors cannot act unfettered if CASA can tell them what to do.

7 hours ago, coljones said:

Engineers Australia is a body, through its members, with much technical expertise.  Professions Australia is body representing engineers and other technical professionals at the workface who have intimate knowledge of what is happening, or in this case, what is not happening at the workface.

No one is saying that these organisations do not represent professional competent people. But the organisations are formed to represent  the interests of their members like any other union or business group. As a result they highlight issues that favour their members interests, for example EA regularly produces reports highlighting the chronic underspend on infrastructure. The obvious direct beneficiaries of any increase in infrastructure spending are engineers in the first instance. Anybody with half a brain who moves outside their immediate comfort zone knows that there has been an underspend on infrastructure for over half a century - it hardly needs EA to produce a report to quantify the estimated value of the underspend. This may have the effect of making the pollies go down their burrows and look for cheaper, softer social spends that may keep their constituents away from their doors. They dont like people complaining about the state of the roads etc as individually the pollies are mostly powerless.

It seems that the announcement was poorly written. I (as did our friend tillmanr) read it and thought that there were 606 valid  votes out of 1159 cast. Two things arise - if there were two votes per ballot how is it that there were 53 less votes than 606 x 2? And why is there no statement as to the number of ballots received and number of informals? Plus it was not a secret vote - but that's another story.

I think an analysis of the reasons for invalid votes should be presented to members so that this level of invalidity can hopefully be avoided in the future.

After watching CASA at the RRAT Estimates Committee hearing yesterday, the smug attitude of Carmody and Aleck towards the committee would seem to indicate that they think that CASA is not in crisis apart from constantly complaining that their fuel tax revenue was drastically down - no doubt a pitch for a bail out.

Where is it written that we have to display the rego certificate? I have checked the Ops and Tech manuals and could not find the requirement.

It seems that Airbus is looking for a new way to crash aircraft. Their track record on complex systems is not great.

That said, interesting concept - maybe I will try it on the Jab!

Cabin width M20J 43.5"

Cabin width Comanche 250 45"

Cabin width C182 42"

I think the video fish eye view gives a distorted idea as to the cockpit. I believe Electroair has an STC for electronic ignition.

Why has no-one mentioned a Mooney?

Not at all. Involving CASA staff in the re-organisation or revitalisation of CASA may just be like letting the foxes run the hen house. It has shown itself to be resistant to change over the decades, and much of this is due to the lack of inertia within the organisation. You can't lay all the blame at the feet of the executives if their hands are tied by the industrial relations framework they have to work with. 

As long as GA (in all its forms) is regarded as a poor cousin of the airline industry by those within CASA because it is not as sexy and there is no real potential of migrating your career to a high paying stable job in GA, GA - especially private ops - will always be left at the bottom of the IN tray. Witness the two decades that it took the promulgate Part 149, Part 91, the Part 61 debacle...........

28 minutes ago, pmccarthy said:

Professions Australia is a reputable lobby group.

No more than any other union or "peak" body. The line on the bottom of page 10 of the report says it all:

"This publication is for non-commercial use within Professionals Australia and its members."

In other words, it is a marketing document designed to garner support membership within CASA's staff.

Professionals Australia is just another union seeking to enhance the pay and number of jobs for its members. From its website:

2 hours ago, Kenlsa said:

Compared to SA they should be able to handle 25 fatal accidents in one year and then complete them within 1 year. Not the 2 plus Years that it takes at the moment.

It is my understanding that ATSB sometimes investigates GA accidents and makes recommendations to CASA for their consideration. This arrangement diffuses responsibility and keeps the blood of CASA's hands (so to speak).

So the question is what do 900 employees actually do? especially those in the sports aviation branch.

CASA claims as to the number of participants is overblown and can only be accounted for by including a guess as to the number of model aircraft flyers who are not allowed to operate near airfields - but then they cant be counting aeromodellers as if that was the case there would be more aircraft.

Leaving aside warbirds as they are VH registered aircraft not operated under the 95 series of CAO's you would be lucky to have 20,000 participants, let alone ACTIVE participants.(In the same way all the members of your local footy club don't play football). As to the claim of 360,000 parachute jumps - simply fantasy.

ATSB knows that hours flown by GFA and RAAus aircraft that they report are fictitious but it suits the cosy little game that CASA, ATSB and the ASAO organisations play to support each of their agendas.

No one is talking about "commercial airspace" as the majority of us fly VFR and have no desire to fly in controlled airspace. As to interacting with IFR aircraft we already do that outside of controlled airspace. This is not a REAL issue in the regulation (de-regulation?) of recreational aviation discussion.

Apparently an STC was raised for LSA55 to install 912. see https://www.casa.gov.au/files/208-1pdf