AIR SAFETY AUSTRALIA
admin@airsafety.com.au Fax: 08 8276 4666 Phone: 08 8276 4600
PO Box 172 Unley South Australia 5061
THE AIRSPACE FIGHT IS A LONG-TERM ONE
Lots of people have said to me that we should not fight the airspace fight, but we should instead fight for the continuation of subsidised landing fees and so on.
I don’t agree. The fight for access to our own airspace is a long-term fight of the utmost importance. The precedent set now will determine for probably 2 generations whether we Australians have a right to fly in our own airspace or we are to be excluded from large parts of it at bureaucratic whim.
THE COALITION AVIATION POLICY OFFERS A (SLENDER) LIFELINE
The Coalition Aviation Policy document offers a lifeline –- but a slender one. The Coalition government’s record on aviation – other than airspace – has been poor. In all other respects, Labor has been on our side more than the Coalition has.
The Coalition’s Aviation Policy contains some attractive promises. But we need to measure those in the light of the dismal performance of the past 8 years. See www.airsafety.com.au/avpol04lcp or if you are a member, ask us to fax it to you.
DICK SMITH TAKES AIRSERVICES TO COURT ON OUR BEHALF
Dick Smith took Airservices Australia to Court on 21st September in order to get a fairer deal for Australian pilots in the use of our own airspace. It is generous and courageous of Dick to do this at his own expense.
He was successful in getting an “expedited hearing” on a date in early November. But sadly the Federal Election is on 9th October. Our Members of parliament are listening today in a way they won’t be in November.
I am joining in Dick’s action personally.
If you do not want VFR pilots excluded from large parts of Australian airspace, then I urge you to persuade any other aviation body of which you are a member – AOPA, ASAC, GFA, RAA, AUF and so on – to join in the action as a plaintiff. It is of little use for those bodies to say outside the Court that they “support” Dick’s action. They need to join in as plaintiffs so that Dick cannot be painted as just one rich man with a bee in his bonnet. It is time to nail our colours to the mast, to stand up and be counted!
REPORT FROM THE COURTROOM ON THE DAY FROM CHARLES PAUKA
See www.airsafety.com.au/charlesreport/ for an account of the first day’s proceedings. The pictures of the Blind Air Traffic Controller are fabulous.
WHY RE-CLASSIFIED CLASS E AIRSPACE MUST HAVE RADAR
There is a very good reason why Class E airspace should not be re-classified to Class C unless it has radar coverage. The reason is that inevitably some pilots will fly with out-of-fate charts. That is a fact of life, especially in Australia where the rate of change of charts is so high. (Remember, we discarded the charts of June 2004). Therefore some pilots will fly in Class C airspace thinking it is still Class E. Because Air Traffic Controllers in places like Hobart, Albury and Mackay have no radar they depend entirely on radio reports from pilots to separate aircraft. They will therefore know nothing about aircraft in their Class C airspace unless those aircraft have called in on the radio.
That in turn means that other aircraft which rely on ATC for collision protection do not have the protection they think they have. Minister Anderson was therefore very wise to direct Airservices to install Radar when Class E airspace was re-classified to Class C.
Airservices is a profit-making body. Nothing wrong there. But Airservices is also a regulator, which it simply cannot be at the same time. Airservices in its regulatory role has decided to take us back to the dark ages with the Airspace changes proposed for 25th November 2004. These changes are not just a “windback” of the changes of 27th November 2003, they are a reversion to the 1950s – and then some. These changes are a very aggressive attempt to exclude us Australian citizens from a huge amount of airspace. This is not airspace which Airservices built or maintains – it is natural airspace which is the natural right of all Australians.
As a profit-making body, Airservices will inevitably respond to the needs of its customers – the airlines. So what has happened here is that Airservices has used its regulatory power to respond to the desires of the airlines – and exclude VFR pilots from huge amounts of Australia’s airspace. We need to respond politically and say “No, this is just not on”. Airservices must not be a regulator as well as a profit-maker.
THE SAFETY IMPLICATIONS
What Airservices plans to do will reduce our safety and put us at unnecessary risk. As an example, we will be forced down to much lower levels over much of the “Tiger Country” near Australia’s ranges. Today we can climb to 17,500’ QNE over Katoomba without a clearance – on November 25th we will be limited to 8,500’ QNH. That means that Eastbound there will be only one night VMC cruising level available – 7,500’ QNH. And if there is an Easterly blowing and the cloud goes up to 8,000’ we simply won’t be able to fly VFR West out of Sydney unless Airservices deigns to give us a clearance to enter OUR OWN AIRSPACE.
ANY QUESTIONS?
Call us on 08 8276 4600 if you have any questions.
CONFUSED BY THE NEW RULES THAT WILL APPLY FROM 25th NOVEMBER?
If so, join the club! So am I and so is Airservices. Dick Smith tells me that there is at least one serious mistake in the colour brochure which accompanied H13/04. How many others can you find?
BEEN FED A LINE THAT YOUR ENGINE IS OUT OF HOURS OR YEARS?
A number of our members have recently been told that their engines are out of hours or out of years. If your aircraft is purely for private use you can maintain its engine “on condition” – which means there is no hard and fast limit on the number of hours or years between overhauls. It seems that Continental may be mounting a blitz on the motor used in the 180 and 182. If you are told that your motor needs an overhaul because it has done more than 12 years or 1600 hours, don’t fall for it. Get a second opinion or call us.
CHARTER OPERATORS BEING SET UPON BY CASA
Every couple of months I hear of a charter operator being set upon by CASA. The background to these cases is remarkably constant. A charter operator has an “excellent relationship” with CASA and wants nothing to do with AIR SAFETY AUSTRALIA or AOPA or such-like. Such operators actually LIKE the fact that CASA’s officers have wide discretion because that wide discretion helps them. Then out of the blue, CASA appears to set on the charter operator. What has invariably happened is that there has been a change of staff at CASA and the new CASA officer has a different opinion from the previous one, and now the wide discretion becomes a hindrance not a help. AIR SAFETY AUSTRALIA is a co-operative organisation – we all help one another. We don’t help those who do not help us.
Boyd Munro 4th October 2004
|
