An aviation researcher, writer, aviation participant, pilot & agricultural researcher. Author of over 35 scientific publications world wide.


Good reads

Oil Prices


ASRR [Aviation Safety Regulatory Review] submissions

I found the following on the Recreational Aviation site and it other posts are well worth reading:

There are some people getting on in a very determined way, doing just that: contacting people in the industry, compiling evidence, presenting the case.

The more information we can provide to the Truss review, the better the chance of having some effect. However, submissions need to consider the realpolitic of what will make an impression. They need to follow three major principles: firstly, engage the political will for change; secondly, provide the evidence of what change is needed in a reasonably concise and understandable format; and thirdly, provide some sort of metric by which a Ministerial office can determine that the Departmental response actually addresses the metric and not just slides around it.

Engaging the political will is critical. One needs to demonstrate that fundamentally, there is either (or preferably both of), a politically good outcome likely to result, or alternatively that a politically bad outcome will result if the change is not embraced. For RAA-class aircraft, arguments on the lines of ‘we are all jolly good chaps, leave us alone’, or ‘we have the right to fly around without all this crap’, won’t get anywhere. We need to show, or at least postulate convincingly, that RAA activities have social/economic value. I think there are several good lines of argument that can be advanced here, including that the whole of light aviation helps to reduce the disadvantages seen in living in regional communities, that it can be a highly important element in the support of regional and remote communities, that it promotes the supply of expertise beyond the major industrialised areas, that is is an integral part of the economic fabric of some rural industries etc. Put shortly, it is essential that the Minister concerned can see ‘value’ in pursuing the proposed course of action.

Providing evidence in a concise and understandable format is also necessary. Politicians have a limited attention-span (sometimes by nature, oft-times by the circumstances of office) and whatever is presented has to be not just a generalised whinge but a realistic summary of what the problem is, what effect the problem has and sufficient authenticity to be convincing. If one takes the time to read the HORSCOT report, you can see the direct result of decent and detailed evidence leading (in particular) to the radical changes in MTOW that allowed recreational-class aircraft to evolve from single-seat devices limited to 500′ AGL out in the boonies, to the effective aircraft we have today.

Finally, providing a metric or metrics by which the Minister etc. can evaluate what actual action/s has/have been taken on the part of the authority to address the issue/s presented is very important, to stop the endless round of the authority concerned replying to a Ministerial direction to ‘do something about this’ by either just meddling around the edges or deflecting the whole idea on the grounds (in CASA’s case) of ‘would adversely affect safety’, or something similar. Trying to secure something relatively unmeasurable such as ‘improved facilities will stimulate the growth of the sector’ are open to a thousand obfuscating responses. Some sort of metric demands a specific response to that metric.

If we believe that changes are necessary – and I don’t think we are, as a group, incorrect in that, then this is a chance to start the ball rolling.