VOCA

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

Categories

Good reads

Oil Prices

#ozaviation

Avgas, $89.9m and CASA – Impropietry/ illegality/confidence in the Department?

Arguments on Avgas levy in pprune – the levy still exists, although is was directed to finish on 30th June 2013 by Treasurer Wayne Swan.

The levy is still in the May 2014 budget, and Swan never removed, nor did the Department  [MrDak] or CASA [McCormick] ensure that either Swan or Hockey knew that the 4-year time limit had expired.

My question is:

  • Where was it applied;
  • Where is it and:
  • Has CASA properly used the money and
  • Why has CASA and the Department not properly ceased the money collection?
  • Is this another way to add to the $250m odd that CASA has already wasted on the ill placed “regulatory reform” process?
  • AND: When will CASA refund the excess [some $46m at least] money to those businesses who have been improperly and incorrectly levied??
  • Is there a serious illegal act in what has happened??

The original aim:

This will result in the aviation fuel excise rate increasing from 2.854 cents per litre to 3.556 cents per litre:

  • an increase of 0.702 cents per litre

Within this funding strategy, additional revenue of $89.9m is forecast to be generated by the increase in the aviation fuel excise rate over the budget and three forward estimate years, based upon projected volumes of collection. CASA will use this additional revenue to fund 97 permanent positions for safety specialists, safety analysts and airworthiness inspectors and other staff, allowing CASA to expand its surveillance activities and fulfill its increasingly complex regulatory responsibilities

________________________________________________________________________________

The most recent thread from pprune is here, with the original below:

Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 22nd May 2014, 19:03   #1 (permalink)
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: West of SY OZ
Posts: 26
The $89.9m question

In May 2010, there was a special avgas/ avtur excise raised in that budget, to continue for 4 years.
My question, as raised in other fora is:

Where was it applied;

Where is it and:

Has casa properly used the money.


Last edited by advo-cate; 26th May 2014 at 13:36.

advo-cate is online now Report Post Edit/Delete Message Reply
Old 22nd May 2014, 19:58   #2 (permalink)
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: In da Big Smoke
Posts: 1,777
I thought that was abolished back under Dick Smith and we went to this wonderful user pay system. Which everyone paid more and got absolutely nothing in return.
neville_nobody is offline Report Post Reply
Old 22nd May 2014, 23:21   #3 (permalink)
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n’est nulle part
Posts: 2,248
Hypothetically thinking, if I were part of any government that had allowed a significant amount of taxpayer funds that were collected, lets say, incorrectly, to chase its own tail between Dept Finance, Treasury, the Regulator and the mail room for years, and end up looking a bit of a budget item embarrassment, I would perhaps announce $100 million to be spent chasing presumably sunken Boeings in the Indian Ocean as an open ended fiscal political gesture of goodwill. That would remove the troublesome $millions from prying eyes. Simple really.

Sick at home today I was subjected to interminable mind numbing advertisements for Industry Super Funds and couldn’t stop thinking it could be seen as a union slush fund divesting itself of some cleansed funds prior to a Royal Commission. Either that, or they are not spending their members funds wisely. Why advertise if fund contributors are at work?

Both paranoia’s wasting taxpayer funds. But that’s only my jaundiced opinion.

Frank Arouet is offline Report Post Reply
Old 22nd May 2014, 23:22   #4 (permalink)

<b< div=””>

Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Downunda
Posts: 510
It’s alive!!

Quote:
Where was it applied;

Supposedly on additional inspectors and various resources, staff training, systems improvements etc etc.

Quote:

Where is it and:

Who fu#king knows. These guys have so many wabbit holes, hollowed out table legs and dusty cupboards in which to hide things (including taxpayer money) that you have more chance of understanding QF’s cooked books than Fort Fumbles finances.

Quote:
Has casa properly used the money.

That question has to be a wind up? Look up the meaning of ‘shonk’ and these guys are listed at position number 3, behind Centerlink at number 2 and first place going to Defence! Since when has any malfunctioning government department staffed by bloated buffoons with degrees in lies and deception been managed effectively or properly? A very brief example is $300 million on a 25 year regulatory reform program that hasn’t even reached first rung on the ladder? $ Billions on shitbox Collins Class Submarines? $ Billions on school sheds and ceiling batts? Let’s just not bother going there. If you want it done right you need to farm it out to the private sector.

CAsA is a joke. But in the end probably no bigger joke than the decades of political masters that are guilty of ‘enabling’ this outfit. Yes enabling them by sitting on their collective soft white bureaucratic hands and allowing Frankenstein to grow in strength. $89 million dollars was just a ‘top up’! It was like sticking a steel rod up old Frankensteins ass and letting a lightning bolt strike it! Indeed that infusion enabled the freak to grow stronger, more powerful, more hybrid.

MM enabling the beast with an $89 million bolt?

004wercras is offline Report Post Reply
Old 23rd May 2014, 00:19   #5 (permalink)
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sydney Harbour
Posts: 242
Worm Farms aren’t cheap to run you know!
Dangly Bits is offline Report Post Reply
Old 23rd May 2014, 07:57   #6 (permalink)
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,007
Tis but a drop in the bucket.

Aw, come on folks; give them a break. The notion of cancelling the fuel levy is ridiculous and to ask where a mere bagatelle of $89.9 big ones has disappeared is just rude. Without additional monies in the reptile fund, how could they continue these world class, innovative programs, so essential to industry safety.

Quote:
Fostering Leadership Innovation Through Excellence Program (FLITE) $0.217 (million).

Growing Leaders to Achieve Safe Skies Program (GLASS) $0.200 (million).

General staff training (provided externally) $0.467 (million).

It’s a busy life, the schedule is hectic.

AM. Take a FLITE to Cantberra and have a GLASS or two with all the happy airport operators.

Morning tea.

Karma Sutra study class, to demonstrate there is more than just the missionary position to adopt when dealing with industry.

Lunch – speaker Peter Garrett on speedy delivery of basic risk assessment.

PM. Afternoon tea at the Pink Bat night club; internal basic electrical safety classes, (production of ops manual parts defining how you can safely use the hand drier). Followed by the external training demonstration of modern lap dancing.

No, they’re not taking the Mickey Bliss, just ask their expensive NZ PR company.


Last edited by Kharon; 23rd May 2014 at 08:01. Reason: Apply ‘pukey’ icon as and where required.

Kharon is offline Report Post Reply
Old 23rd May 2014, 10:22   #7 (permalink)
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Enzed
Posts: 1,514
Quote:
No, they’re not taking the Mickey Bliss, just ask their expensive NZ PR company.

Do you mean PR or MR (Market Research). Mind you, both PR and MR go hand in hand, one does the research to come up with the answer you want (statistics) and the other delivers that answer in a manner that conveys the message you want to be heard (lies).

Just a twist on the old saying, there’s Lies, Damn Lies, and then Statistics.

27/09 is offline Report Post Reply
Old 25th May 2014, 11:25   #8 (permalink)
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,350
Neville. I think you may be a bit mixed up. Under my Chairmanship of CAA the review of resources under Frank Baldwin was introduced bringing staff numbers from 7000 to 3500,

Or maybe you wanted the duplicated mandatory full position Flight Service system to stay costing about $100 m a year ?

I am still the only one stating that the cost of safety regulation has to be AFFORDABLE by those who are forced to pay or the market no longer exists.

And we still get fools on this site saying I introduced affordable safety as if un- affordable safety is a possible way to go!

It was the Bosche report well before my time that introduced user pays.

Dick Smith is offline Report Post Reply
Old 25th May 2014, 19:29   #9 (permalink)

<b< div=””>

Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Downunda
Posts: 510
A regulator, some dollars and some Dick

Hi Dick. I quite like you these days mate, so I’m not goin to rip into you, however your cost cutting was flawed in some areas, particularly in regard to the amount of aerodrome inspectors you had in the crosshairs. There is still a shortfall in the inspectorate to this very day….that’s my only gripe buddy.

On a seperate note the pendulum has swung the other way and today’s CAsA is short staffed in numerous areas, and the Consultant expenditure is huge. Then again that’s how the accountants and spin doctors like to massage things, as long as actual staff numbers are low they really don’t care how much money is blown on Consultants etc, ‘top up’ manpower if you want to call it that. Sunfish will have a term for that little smoke and mirrors trick, my business acumen falls short in that area.

Footnote: Perhaps if Dick came back and managed CAsA as if it was one His businesses we would end up with a financially sound Regulator, efficient, innovative, adapts to change and hell even turns a profit which is reinfused back into the industry it has helped kill?

“Safe skies are definitely not CAsA skies”

004wercras is offline Report Post Reply
Old 25th May 2014, 21:41   #10 (permalink)
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,350
So how many lives have been lost on accidents incurred in the 22 years since the number of Airport Inspectors were cut?

I heard similar claims when my Board closed RFFS at all the secondary airports .

Over $100 million saved by the GA airport users since then and no lives lost attributed to the closure.

No, I won’t be back- most of those who benefited by my tough decisions never stopped whingeing.- and I only do things for self satisfaction!

Dick Smith is offline Report Post Reply
Old 25th May 2014, 21:43   #11 (permalink)
Join Date: May 2013
Location: have I forgotten or am I lost?
Age: 62
Posts: 1,067
it is a pity we pilots can’t elect the head of casa and the board, american style for fixed terms.
…and it is a pity we can’t shoot the bastards when they go off doing their own thing.

ps.

Quote:
and I only do things for self satisfaction!

liar liar, pants on fire 🙂

dubbleyew eight is offline Report Post Reply
Old 25th May 2014, 22:39   #12 (permalink)
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: In da Big Smoke
Posts: 1,777
Dick I just want to fly from A to B in CAVOK without holding because we dont’t have enough runways yet we have to pay for landing charges + enroute + tower charges + RFF fee etc etc

I thought the fuel tax was removed as it was deemed unfair and the cost of operation could be lowered by removing a unecessary tax on operation. I am ‘suprised’ that we still have a fuel tax which somehow CASA gets to spend.

Advo-cate’s question is a very good one. It certainly has not been spent on runways or ILS’s that’s for sure.

Maybe one for the Honourable Mr Xenophoen.

neville_nobody is offline Report Post Reply
Old 25th May 2014, 23:32   #13 (permalink)

<b< div=””>

Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Downunda
Posts: 510
Quote:
So how many lives have been lost on accidents incurred in the 22 years since the number of Airport Inspectors were cut?

Dick, unless you have access to some kind of shelfware that we don’t know about, your comment is flawed. How many incidents, serious ones, have occurred and how many serious latent risks exist right now due to not enough inspectors providing adequate oversight? Anyway, let’s not tango as the dance will never end.
But suffice to say, you may have allegedly saved GA $100 million but your offspring at Fort Fumble, since your departure, have cost GA and this country a hell of a lot more. Lack of productivity, regulatory reform, a diminished future for GA, the damage over recent years, the systematic buggery of sole operators up to the larger ones would have cost this country hundreds of millions of dollars…..I don’t think that is an exaggeration.

004wercras is offline Report Post Reply
Old 26th May 2014, 12:23   #14 (permalink)
Join Date: May 2010
Location: More than 300km from SY, Australia
Posts: 770
Mr. Albanese eh??

I try to do the research for us to give proper argument to the discussion:

About a 25% increase!!

Up-into-the-air is offline Report Post Reply
Old 27th May 2014, 05:10   #15 (permalink)
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,350
Double, so you know more about my motives than I do.

If I don’t do things only for self satisfaction what is your explanation of why I do these things ?

I have always been opposed to fuel taxes being used to cover aviation regulatory costs as they hide the real costs.

But astute bureaucrats know they get far less flack from a hidden tax compared to direct charging.

It’s our dopey industry that allows this to happen by vocally objecting to any transparent charge but saying very little when a tax is increased- and that’s clearly what happened!

Dick Smith is offline Report Post Reply
Old 27th May 2014, 10:43   #16 (permalink)
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n’est nulle part
Posts: 2,248
Dick, a lot here probably don’t remember Air Nav Charges as they related to annual use of aircraft. The fuel excise from memory did away with that and many applauded the initiative because it did away with a big cash burden in one hit. I was one who previously had to apply for a historical reduction for my Auster, but even this was a problem.

The problem as I see it today is it is being misused, but this doesn’t surprise me with the CAsA. As Maxwell Smart would probably remark, “if it was used for good not evil, GA would prosper instead of becoming extinct”.

Why is everybody suffering in aviation today when we allegedly have the world’s best regulator and is cashed up to the hilt by a compliant government? They probably ruin $89.9M of aviation business opportunities each year so we can double the amount of outgoings to $179.8M which would be better spent on something other than lining Lawyers pockets and topping up the CAsA trough.


Last edited by Frank Arouet; 27th May 2014 at 10:44. Reason: But I was wrong once.

Frank Arouet is offline Report Post Reply
Old 23rd Jun 2014, 10:58   #17 (permalink)
Join Date: May 2010
Location: More than 300km from SY, Australia
Posts: 770
You are right Frank!!

And just to remind us, Fort Fumble and the Dark Side are still spending the money.

Here is another “project”:


Be nice for the Senators to ask the funding for this and similar.

Maybe they can find the $89.9m – perhaps the Minister could help???

Maybe Senator Nash’s “Pete the Potplant” may be on steroids that produce “money”.

Up-into-the-air is offline Report Post Reply
Old 23rd Jun 2014, 11:28   #18 (permalink)
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: YMMB
Age: 49
Posts: 554
WTF do 850 staff do at CASA?

You could invade a small country with fewer people.

It takes 850 staff to over see 37,000 flight crew licenses? That’s about 44 licenses per CASA staff member!

With that ratio of CASA staff to license holders I’d expect a level of service where a CASA staff member stands by the fuel bowser to fill my tank.


Last edited by peterc005; 23rd Jun 2014 at 12:13.

peterc005 is offline Report Post Reply
Old 23rd Jun 2014, 13:04   #19 (permalink)
Join Date: May 2014
Location: AUS
Posts: 24
Your post indicates that you’re 49 years old, Peter, but I doubt that given your Gen Y statement within your post.

So all those aircraft registrations look after themselves I guess?

All the AOCs need no oversight, I guess?

All the regulatory services (amending ops specs etc) happen automatically, I guess?

All of our airports need no oversight either, I guess?

Manufacturers of aircraft parts can be left to their own devices, I guess?

Nothing ever goes wrong in engineering, so Aircraft repair and maintenance organisations need no oversight either, I guess?

850 may not be the right number, but statements like those above just show ignorance!

HeSaidWhat is offline Report Post Reply
Old 23rd Jun 2014, 13:54   #20 (permalink)
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: YMMB
Age: 49
Posts: 554
My statements are factual. How you interpret the facts is upto you.

The growth in CASA staff numbers over the past four years has been about 25%. i.e. (850 – 675) / 675.

Given improvements in technology and automation Eg. CASA Self Service Portal I would have expected CASA staff numbers to drop or at worst stay static.

The growth in CASA staff numbers far outpace other metrics, such as the number of licenses (up 4%), AOCs (up 8%) etc.

I vote we bring Dick Smith back to run CASA!

peterc005 is offline Report Post Reply
Reply
Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 23rd Jun 2014, 14:06   #21 (permalink)
Join Date: May 2014
Location: AUS
Posts: 24
Not disputing your facts, Peter. Problem is you included only one fact:

37000 divided by 850 equals circa 44.

It’s the decision to use that fact on its own that leads to a conclusion of “ignorance”. To suggest that CASA only oversees aircrew licences is misleading.

Now that you have parked the Gen Y approach, your argument is stronger indeed. Not sure that you’d get too much support on the ‘Dick Smith return’ concept.

HeSaidWhat is offline Report Post Reply
Old 23rd Jun 2014, 15:06   #22 (permalink)
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: YMMB
Age: 49
Posts: 554
People may criticise Dick Smith, but his motivation seems genuine and I think he put a lot of effort into changing things at CASA to improve aviation.

I’d still like to know why all of these extra warm bodies were needed at CASA over the past four years?

Why can’t we expect a “Productivity Bonus” from the recent tech projects at CASA? Surely this would mean less staff, not more?

peterc005 is offline Report Post Reply
Old 23rd Jun 2014, 15:50   #23 (permalink)
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n’est nulle part
Posts: 2,248
A “productivity bonus” when applied to an industry equals more production of the manufactured goods which equals more profit for the Industrialist and his shareholders, more tax paid and more employment because the industry flourishes, the Country flourishes and governments flourish with more cash to spend on their constituents.

A “productivity bonus” when applied to a Bureaucracy equals more paperwork, more prosecutions for regulatory offences, more fines, more tax, more people employed to oversee those in the lower levels of the triangle, more costs to industry, more government burden, less money to spend on constituents, oh! and more trips to overseas troughs, 5 star hotels and first class travel.
In “the real world, if the bloke up the road is doing better than you in his fish and chip shop, you either give a better product, give a better service or drop your prices.
In the “fairyland” of fort fumble if you aren’t making enough money, you simply put your prices up because you have a monopoly or ask the government to give you more to keep your little empire going. Some governments waste money pandering to these parasites, some more than others.
In both cases money is finite. I guess it’s how you spend it.

Dick is a good bloke, he’s already said he doesn’t want into this theatre of fools any more, but tell us Pete, what would YOU do?

Last edited by Frank Arouet; 23rd Jun 2014 at 16:02. Reason: Due to current economic conditions the light at the end of the tunnel has been turned off

Frank Arouet is offline Report Post Reply
Old 23rd Jun 2014, 17:44   #24 (permalink)
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 915
I would dispute the so called 37,000 licenced pilots. A more accurate figure would be the number of medicals renewed each year., an awful lot of that 37,000 are inactive licenses, and I am informed anecdotally that the number decreases each year as does the number of aircraft that actively fly.
From a business perspective hours flown per year have steadily declined, one would have expected CAsA numbers to reflect that decline in the industry. It would seem that the law of diminishing returns applies to CAsA.

Which begs the question ” What happens to CAsA when there is no industry left to surpress?


Last edited by thorn bird; 23rd Jun 2014 at 19:58.

thorn bird is offline Report Post Reply
Old 23rd Jun 2014, 22:01   #25 (permalink)

<b< div=””>

Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Downunda
Posts: 510
Quote:
Which begs the question ” What happens to CAsA when there is no industry left to surpress?

The parasite finds a new host. In this case maybe AMSA or NOPSEMA. There is always a regulatory vein to leech from Thorny

004wercras is offline Report Post Reply
Old 23rd Jun 2014, 22:39   #26 (permalink)
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 915
Yeah but 850 incompetents???
thorn bird is offline Report Post Reply
Old 23rd Jun 2014, 23:53   #27 (permalink)
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: YMMB
Age: 49
Posts: 554
It’s not just the figure of 850, it’s the growth of 25% over four years.

You’d think with technology like the CASA Self Service Portal it would save jobs because you need fewer people answering phones and updating details.

What about all the functions, such as Testing Officers, delegated out to industry.

Don’t forget the consultants and law firms assisting with legislative changes.

What are all of these people doing?

Tell you what, I’d like to meet the guy who writes the CASA budget submissions and gets them this type of funding. He must be good.

peterc005 is offline Report Post Reply
Old 29th Jun 2014, 17:19   #28 (permalink)
Join Date: May 2008
Location: earth
Posts: 74
So 37 000 medical shave to be scrutinised by CASA each year, why? The legislation regarding medicals has been written, there is no need for anything other than a doctor signing a certificate and handing it to the pilot, I don’t understand why CASA has to get involved at all?
mr flappy is offline Report Post Reply
Old 29th Jun 2014, 20:40   #29 (permalink)
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Brisbane, Qld, Australia
Age: 68
Posts: 671
Quote:
mail room

If it landed in the CAsA mail room and was not signed for, they will deny all knowledge of it.

601 is offline Report Post Reply
Old 2nd Jul 2014, 22:28   #30 (permalink)
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,499
Quote:
I thought the fuel tax was removed as it was deemed unfair and the cost of operation could be lowered by removing a unecessary tax on operation. I am ‘suprised’ that we still have a fuel tax which somehow CASA gets to spend.

Neville N,
Let’s get a few facts straight, shall we.
Don’t make a target of me for a fraction of a cent, but the then levy on Avgas only (which meant no turbine operator paid anything) was largely to subsidize secondary airport towers.

As I recall, the total levy was 15.2 cents per litre, of which 13.8 cents went to Airservices, the rest went to CAA/CASA —- avgas only, no turbine operator paid, so Dick paid nothing at his home base (he always made it VERY clear that he thought this was most unfair), no significant airline paid a cent.

Absolutely nothing to do with towers at secondary or the occasional smaller towered airports, some time later an excise was levied on ALL domestic aviation fuel use, and most of the funds went to CASA. Instead of further jacking up CASA service chargers, plus consolidated revenue, CASA received a steady income, with the kero burners and avgas users all paying.

The nature of this excise, and it use, is completely different to the one Dick had removed.

It was never fair, that GA outside the major cities (the major part of GA) got slugged 13.8 cents per litre for avgas, for a service they never or rarely received, so a few operators at the capital city secondary airports received services at a cost far below the cost of the service —- and turbine operators paid nothing at all for the services.

Indeed, I used to have some figures for avgas sales, to show who paid and who got the heavily subsidized ( by out-of- towners), as I recall, (about 1996??) about 80% of sales were NOT at capital city secondary airports (air ag. were big users).

Now I keep hearing people complain about landing charges that are paid to the airport operator, nothing to do with an excise, although I will say that the, in my opinion, dirty deal between AsA and Archerfield is very naughty, as I understand it, you wind up paying an AsA component, even if the tower is closed?

Tootle pip!!

LeadSled is offline Report Post Reply
Old 3rd Jul 2014, 12:03   #31 (permalink)
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 915
Leadie,

Who gets the levee at BK?. It’s now cheaper to buy Jet A at Bourke than Bankstown.

If the airport fees weren’t so high, it would certainly be cheaper to ferry to Mascot to pick up fuel.

thorn bird is offline Report Post Reply
Old 3rd Jul 2014, 13:48   #32 (permalink)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: australia
Age: 50
Posts: 409
Hi frank,

The commonwealth bank or Macquarie private bank have a great deal for you with your retirement/investment funds. Stay away from those dastardly industry funds, retail bank funds are the only way to go

frank, if you are really serious and want to do your own research go to the APRA website and download the super funds returns tables. Has been published annually for the last few years and give 1, 5 and 10 year results. It has about 180-190 funds, these are the top funds and includes retail, industry and corporate funds. Worth a read and fun to see how your fund is doing compared to others. Even the white rat is there.
Oh, to be an employee at Goldman Sachs and in their super fund

Apologies to Frank for the late reply to your post 22 May, been away for a while


Last edited by indamiddle; 3rd Jul 2014 at 14:59. Reason: Adding stuff

indamiddle is offline Report Post Reply
Reply

__________________________________________________________________________

Original thread:

Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 16th Jun 2010, 16:39   #1 (permalink)
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n’est nulle part
Posts: 2,248
Albanese to introduce a new AVGAS TAX

Just heard from question time in The House Of representatives, Albanese justifies a proposed .285c to .324c increase in Avgas excise to fund CASA.

Cites GA is growing?
PVT aircraft ownership is growing?
Helicopter operations are growing?

As an aside he said “GA represents a “huge” risk to aviation safety/ security.

Can we read that as GA is to future fund CASA and not the bums on seats of Kero burning RPT?

Has anybody asked what planet this “Minister” comes from?

It’s just another nail in the coffin.

IDIOTS.

Frank Arouet is offline Report Post Reply
Old 16th Jun 2010, 17:03   #2 (permalink)
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Up The 116E, Stbd Turn at 32S…:-)
Age: 73
Posts: 2,212

We used to pay a levy on Avgas – can’t recall the actual figure.

We were informed at the time that it was used to fund Flight Service.

The removal of same fuel levy (tax) was a BIG point in spruiking the removal of F.S.

I feel Mr Albanese cannot have it both ways – the ASA en route charges (read ‘indirect’ taxes) already return a healthy profit to the Govt……

So why then does he feel the need to re-introduce that tax which was a pivotal point in the removal of services..??

One can only ‘HOPE’ that he is about to re-introduce some (any) services to GA..??

Ex FSO GRIFFO is offline Report Post Reply
Old 16th Jun 2010, 17:31   #3 (permalink)
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Mydadsbag
Posts: 1,083

Does this band of cretins know no bounds?

How much longer before we can not vote for Rudd?

bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzbbbbbbbbbbbbb

Mr.Buzzy is offline Report Post Reply
Old 16th Jun 2010, 17:51   #4 (permalink)
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Everywhere
Posts: 85

On matters aviation, Albanese can best be described as an inadequate mental midget.

Imagine if you will what I would have said had I honestly spoken my mind.

CC

Checklist Charlie is offline Report Post Reply
Old 16th Jun 2010, 18:17   #5 (permalink)
Join Date: May 2009
Location: hot on the heels of worthy targets
Posts: 184

I don’t disagree with the thrust of your concerns frank, but just so people are clear on the actual change i.e. an increase of less than 1c per litre.

Civil Aviation Safety Authority

Quote:
This will result in the aviation fuel excise rate increasing from 2.854 cents per litre to 3.556 cents per litre, an increase of 0.702 cents per litre.

Within this funding strategy, additional revenue of $89.9m is forecast to be generated by the increase in the aviation fuel excise rate over the budget and three forward estimate years, based upon projected volumes of collection. CASA will use this additional revenue to fund 97 permanent positions for safety specialists, safety analysts and airworthiness inspectors and other staff, allowing CASA to expand its surveillance activities and fulfil its increasingly complex regulatory responsibilities

Amongst other things:-

Quote:
the Office of Airspace Regulation. This funding replaces the existing cost recovery arrangement with AirServices Australia, due to expire under the existing agreement on 30 June 2010.

Are AsA are going to reduce fees in line with not funding OAR from 30 June?

The other interesting part of this is that premumably GA in controlled airspace have been funding CASA OAR, this change means all GA including Avgas burning RAAus will now pay for it? Fair or not?

The Chaser is offline Report Post Reply
Old 16th Jun 2010, 18:40   #6 (permalink)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: nocte volant
Posts: 1,120
Quote:
As an aside he said “GA represents a “huge” risk to aviation safety/ security

I dare say the next election represents a huge risk to Albanese’s future job security…

Trojan1981 is offline Report Post Reply
Old 16th Jun 2010, 18:41   #7 (permalink)
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Living next door to Alan
Posts: 1,517
Danger

Quote:
How much longer before we can not vote for Rudd?

There’s a new catchphrase going ’round, bzzbzzzzzzbzzz:

Kevin 07 – gone by 11.

I can’t think of anything that rhymes with Albanese, except “I’m a sleazy”.

Hugh Jarse is offline Report Post Reply
Old 16th Jun 2010, 18:53   #8 (permalink)
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 46
Posts: 6,389
Devil

And most RAAus machines use Mogas where they can………

Jarse…… Hope you are right

Jabawocky is offline Report Post Reply
Old 16th Jun 2010, 18:53   #9 (permalink)
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: somewhere in Oz
Age: 44
Posts: 771

Why would the politicians believe that the Regulated would be willing to pay for more regulation?

The Regulated don’t benefit from being regulated – it’s the population at large, who should, by and large, pay!

User pays is meaningless in this context.

Andy_RR is offline Report Post Reply
Old 16th Jun 2010, 18:54   #10 (permalink)
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Syderknee
Posts: 1,144
Albanese office is around the corner from my place, I have brick I can put through his window if everyone would care to sign it.
rmcdonal is offline Report Post Reply
Old 16th Jun 2010, 19:03   #11 (permalink)
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Up The 116E, Stbd Turn at 32S…:-)
Age: 73
Posts: 2,212

Thanks for the ‘offer’ Mac., But, just vote ‘NO’ at the next election…….

Calathumpians, Greens, anyone but these ‘not-so-intelligent-persons’……

Ex FSO GRIFFO is offline Report Post Reply
Old 16th Jun 2010, 19:06   #12 (permalink)
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Australia
Age: 48
Posts: 1,565

Probably the General Aviation Resources Tax, so that all those wealthy GA capitalists and aircraft owners pay fairly for using good Australian air to fly around.

Nothing like the union thugs, communists and do gooders in the ALP once again setting into destroy general aviation in Australia!!!!

Stationair8 is offline Report Post Reply
Old 16th Jun 2010, 19:39   #13 (permalink)
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Sydney
Posts: 682
Where are all the effwits who were on here celebrating when Labor came to power just a couple of years ago?
Dr Oakenfold is offline Report Post Reply
Old 16th Jun 2010, 19:43   #14 (permalink)
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,570
Quote:
Where are all the effwits who were on here celebrating when Labor came to power just a couple of years ago?

ouch, go easy, anybody can make a mistake….

…. though, …them ASIC’s…….

.

Flying Binghi is offline Report Post Reply
Old 16th Jun 2010, 19:57   #15 (permalink)
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 17
I voted for Labor in the last election, so I guess that makes me an effwit. So what’s your point mate? What did you want to ask me?
Sumdumguy is offline Report Post Reply
Old 16th Jun 2010, 20:10   #16 (permalink)
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Perth
Posts: 432
Quote:
On matters aviation, Albanese can best be described as an inadequate mental midget.

Checklist

I’ve always thought that it was on all matters actually.

However, I don’t believe that this is his idea (partly because he doesn’t strike me as one who is troubled with ideas too often). No, I suspect that the passing of the ETS has opened up a great big hole which they’re now desperately trying to fill.
And aircraft owner/operators are always easy targets aren’t they ?
Joe public isn’t going to shed too many tears if there are less of us around.

ZEEBEE is offline Report Post Reply
Old 16th Jun 2010, 20:32   #17 (permalink)
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Local Ovarian
Posts: 56
Yes Albanese..

Thanks for your life saving jump seat policy too…Your a life and community saver!!
WangFunk is offline Report Post Reply
Old 16th Jun 2010, 20:35   #18 (permalink)
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Sydney
Posts: 378

CASA already employs over 3000 people. There are less than 60,000 people employed in aviation in Australia (Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics). That is 1 to 20 ratio of overseers to employees. Bear in mind that many of those 60,000 CASA have absolutely no interest in as they are in roles outside their immediate oversight.

It is a gross waste of public resources.

Aviation needs a champion in the Government, more than one in fact.

my 2c

sprocket check is offline Report Post Reply
Old 16th Jun 2010, 20:46   #19 (permalink)
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: In the air
Posts: 78
Quote:
CASA will use this additional revenue to fund 97 permanent positions for safety specialists, safety analysts and airworthiness inspectors and other staff, allowing CASA to expand its surveillance activities and fulfil its increasingly complex regulatory responsibilities

Kind of useless if GA business’ start going out of business!

I might apply. Easiest job ever. Doing surveillance on nothing

hardNfast is offline Report Post Reply
Old 16th Jun 2010, 21:11   #20 (permalink)
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Queensland
Posts: 604

Desperate people do desperate things. This Govt is sending the Australian economy into a spiral dive. They will grab at anything which offers sure funding…….avgas is only one.

Lets hope the election is called before all this happens.

PA39 is offline Report Post Reply

 

Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 16th Jun 2010, 21:13   #21 (permalink)
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,570
Quote:
he said “GA represents a “huge” risk to aviation safety/ security.

Wonder what that’s about ?
.

Flying Binghi is offline Report Post Reply
Old 16th Jun 2010, 22:20   #22 (permalink)
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 645
The biggest risk to Aviation in Australia, is the Minister – begone you **** !!
Kevin 07 – Gone by 11 – I’m there.
SeldomFixit is offline Report Post Reply
Old 16th Jun 2010, 22:28   #23 (permalink)
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Melbourne,Vic,Australia
Posts: 374
Quote:
The Regulated don’t benefit from being regulated – it’s the population at large, who should, by and large, pay!

The people who benefit from regulation are a pack of (mainly canberra) &$&##*! parasites.

Deaf is offline Report Post Reply
Old 16th Jun 2010, 22:40   #24 (permalink)
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: The Shire
Posts: 2,632
Don’t think the libs will reverse it, they need to pluck some money from somewhere to pay for this damn mess labor put us in.

IMO Rudd should be thrown in jail for irresponsible spending. If it were members of the public sector who blew this dough there would be a royal commission.

The Green Goblin is offline Report Post Reply
Old 16th Jun 2010, 23:56   #25 (permalink)
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Sydney
Posts: 378
Quote:
Desperate people do desperate things. This Govt is sending the Australian economy into a spiral dive. They will grab at anything which offers sure funding…….avgas is only one.

Methinks it’s Albanese trying to look good in front of his boss.

Aviation is an easy target. Always will be. I reckon the paid consortium McCormick brought up that is trying to get rid of GA is within CASA itself.

sprocket check is offline Report Post Reply
Old 17th Jun 2010, 00:16   #26 (permalink)
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Sydney
Posts: 873
don’t forget that the 0.7c per litre will also probably attract GST, making it 0.77c per litre.

the other thing that amazes me is that $90 million is going to be used to fund 97 extra CASA positions. Now correct me if I am wrong, but that is $927,835 PER EXTRA EMPLOYEE!!!!

how much are these clowns at CASA really worth?

apache is offline Report Post Reply
Old 17th Jun 2010, 00:30   #27 (permalink)
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Up The 116E, Stbd Turn at 32S…:-)
Age: 73
Posts: 2,212
AAAhh Mr Apache,

and the F.S. that was gotten rid of waaay baack was supposed to have cost $80Million p.a………according to one Mr Mike Smith, the ASA spokesperson, when it was first mooted to get rid of F.S.

Subsequent ‘challenges’ reduced this figure somewhat, but the exaggeration remained.

Who would honestly know ??

So how can ANY of these ‘estimates’ be believed!!

More spin…more spin….like a washing machine…..just goes ’round n ’round…..

Ex FSO GRIFFO is offline Report Post Reply
Old 17th Jun 2010, 01:25   #28 (permalink)
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: AUSTRALIA
Posts: 172
Part of that 97mil is without doubt to ensure there are no ASIC holders airside having a drink after all the aircraft are safely hangared.
After all we’re from the guvmint we’re here to make sure you’re safe from yourselves
When the fuel excise was lifted on avgas in the interests of user pays, avgas became cheaper than mogas, hurrah, until the fuel companies discovered they had to increase prices to make ends meet……. and the guvmint decided to introduce just a teensy 1c/ltr I think tax to fund something or other, which our friend Albanese has latched on to.
Meantime we all got slugged with the user pays terminal/sector fees which are still with us and steadily increasing.
It’s no good bleating about it on this forum the only way is to have some concentrated response. Join AOPA or some other outfit whose members use avgas and let your membership dues support some argument that the pollies might listen to
CHAIRMAN is offline Report Post Reply
Old 17th Jun 2010, 03:10   #29 (permalink)
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,063
Bearing in mind less and less places away from the capital cities are supplying Avgas, how do they propose to collect this tax? Is there a levy on Jet A1?

So, more taxes on us greedy overseas owned fat cat limited-resources-depleting GA companies. What a great idea. I seem to recall Beasley having a similar idea. A super dooper tax on the airport leaseholders would be nice though.

Can it be arranged for Rudd do a Harold Holt and just disappear?

Charlie Foxtrot India is offline Report Post Reply
Old 17th Jun 2010, 03:37   #30 (permalink)
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Perth
Posts: 432
Quote:
Can it be arranged for Rudd do a Harold Holt and just disappear?

CFI

Sounds like a great slogan to me…

ZEEBEE is offline Report Post Reply
Old 17th Jun 2010, 09:52   #31 (permalink)
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Back again.
Posts: 1,151
I get the feeling Albanese is trying to make GA disappear. Class D and E works a hell of a lot better when there’s no G and A.
Lodown is offline Report Post Reply
Old 17th Jun 2010, 10:04   #32 (permalink)
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 46
Posts: 6,389
Quote:
Quote:
he said “GA represents a “huge” risk to aviation safety/ security.
Wonder what that’s about ?

FB

Maybe he realised we all had very accurate GPS systems and your scaring him with GPS buzz bombs has got him very nervous.

Jabawocky is offline Report Post Reply
Old 17th Jun 2010, 10:13   #33 (permalink)
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NSW
Posts: 1,497
Where is AOPA and Dick S. on this?? They should be on the airwaves and newspapers.

The insidious creep of costs even a cent at a time can be ruinous.

We just gave $400m to Africa so Rudd can get elected to some UN deal. Charity begins at home.

Don’t forget the largest groups [by numbers] of aircraft and pilots are NOT even over-sighted by CASA…RAAus/GFA/AWAL/PFA…

Remember Rudd is Whitlam’s love child. The country may not fully recover from his economic and socialist vandalism….

TBM-Legend is offline Report Post Reply
Old 17th Jun 2010, 11:51   #34 (permalink)
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n’est nulle part
Posts: 2,248
Don’t do it Frank!
Frank Arouet is offline Report Post Reply
Old 17th Jun 2010, 13:52   #35 (permalink)
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,063
Nice to see the inflammatory language has gone from “Intolerable risk” to just “huge”. Thank god for JMac’s Class D taxi calls! We are so much safer now.
Charlie Foxtrot India is offline Report Post Reply
Old 17th Jun 2010, 14:39   #36 (permalink)
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Alabama, then Wyoming, then Idaho and now staying with Kharon on Styx houseboat
Age: 52
Posts: 1,400
The wheels have fallen off

Frank,
I love this statement –

Quote:
As an aside he said “GA represents a “huge” risk to aviation safety security.

Interesting how the focus within CASA when it comes to safety oversight is larger passenger operations in the big playground. They don’t look at cargo operators (some very large aircraft shooting around Australia on a daily and nightly basis). They don’t look at cabin crew issues – only 2 Inspectors for all of Australia ( less than any other regulated country), minimal attention to dangerous goods( a mere 3 Inspectors for all of Australia which is less than any other regulated country), they don’t look at the larger GA type aircraft in use, they don’t look at the escalation in ground operations incidents and accidents and CASA don’t comply with FAA or ICAO findings until at least 2 years later when the hammer is about to fall on them ! This is managed by an inept board of buearacrats with plenty of public service experience but next to no experience in aviation. In fact board member Allan Hawke just copped a caning for performing 30 days work with a bill of 175k in another public service area. What does that tell the smart people out there in aviation land?? And this comes atop of an organization preaching risk based oversight and claiming GA is at the bottom of the risk pile! Certainly seems like the Minister and Fort Fumble are operating on different wave lengths. Now that is what I would define as being aviation risk.
Frank, as for your question Has anybody asked what planet this “Minister” comes from? It is quite obvious that Albanese is just another politician in charge of a portfolio that he has no understanding of. So I guess yes, he is guilty of that, but then again, aren’t they all?? But Planet Uranus is the likely answer to your question.

Hugh Jarse –

Quote:
I can’t think of anything that rhymes with Albanese, except “I’m a sleazy

Try rhyming Albanese with Swiss cheese, because the holes have been lining up for some time now, it is only a matter of time.

The Chaser –

Quote:
This will result in the aviation fuel excise rate increasing from 2.854 cents per litre to 3.556 cents per litre, an increase of 0.702 cents per litre
Within this funding strategy, additional revenue of $89.9m is forecast to be generated by the increase in the aviation fuel excise rate over the budget and three forward estimate years, based upon projected volumes of collection. CASA will use this additional revenue to fund 97 permanent positions for safety specialists, safety analysts and airworthiness inspectors and other staff, allowing CASA to expand its surveillance activities and fulfill its increasingly complex regulatory responsibilities

Interesting statement. Safety Specialists you say?? My source tells me most have left CASA now, mass departure over the past 12 months for greener pastures, and another one leaves next week. As for analysts, my source tells me that it is pretty much kiddies and non industry people conducting these tasks and that the lights are on but nobody’s home. They spend their days running around asking knowledgeable people how to manage AOC`s and COA`s and are too scared to make decisions. As for more airworthiness inspectors this will be interesting – more 60+ retirees looking to make an easy buck for 3 years before retiring, wonderful addition to the inspectorate ranks that will be.

gobbledock is offline Report Post Reply
Old 17th Jun 2010, 16:17   #37 (permalink)
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n’est nulle part
Posts: 2,248
I doubt any of them can spell AOC or CAO.
Frank Arouet is offline Report Post Reply
Old 17th Jun 2010, 16:46   #38 (permalink)
Man Bilong Balus long PNG
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Back in the ‘real world’ of Australia again, the party being over for another year but still looking for a bad bottle of Red
Age: 60
Posts: 1,857
Quote:
Greens,

Griffo; Surely you jest! Have you read the `Watermelon` party`s policies on Aviation?

Pinky the pilot is offline Report Post Reply
Old 17th Jun 2010, 17:10   #39 (permalink)
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Up The 116E, Stbd Turn at 32S…:-)
Age: 73
Posts: 2,212
Nah Pinks, sorry I haven’t…..

Did I miss something..??

Do they really eat sushi in ‘that place’..??

Ex FSO GRIFFO is offline Report Post Reply
Old 17th Jun 2010, 17:23   #40 (permalink)
Man Bilong Balus long PNG
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Back in the ‘real world’ of Australia again, the party being over for another year but still looking for a bad bottle of Red
Age: 60
Posts: 1,857
Griffo;If memory serves correctly, the Geens policy on aviation as a whole is that it must be `environmentally sustainable.` I leave you to draw your own conclusions as to a Greens party meaning of that statement.

There is a great Sushi place about 10 minutes walk from where I currently sit!

Pinky the pilot is offline Report Post Reply
Reply
Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 18th Jun 2010, 01:24   #41 (permalink)
Join Date: May 2009
Location: hot on the heels of worthy targets
Posts: 184
gobbledock

Quote:
Safety Specialists you say??

No, I didn’t say, the quote was from the from the CASA site link I provided

I agree 100% with your comments though

The Chaser is offline Report Post Reply
Old 18th Jun 2010, 10:45   #42 (permalink)
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 5,671
Quote:
Griffo;If memory serves correctly, the Greens policy on aviation as a whole is that it must be `environmentally sustainable.` I leave you to draw your own conclusions as to a Greens party meaning of that statement.

translation : Tofu burning Cessna.

Sunfish is offline Report Post Reply
Old 19th Jun 2010, 13:03   #43 (permalink)
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Queensland
Posts: 333
Sunfish ,Pinky
Taking on board the sarcastic tone used when referring to the Greens “Environmentally Sustainable ” policy are we to conclude that you think this is not a desirable goal ?
Cheers R.A
rutan around is online now Report Post Reply
Old 19th Jun 2010, 22:50   #44 (permalink)
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,570
Quote:
Taking on board the sarcastic tone used when referring to the Greens “Environmentally Sustainable ” policy are we to conclude that you think this is not a desirable goal ?

rutan around, do you think Oz aviation is not “Environmentally Sustainable” ?

.

Flying Binghi is offline Report Post Reply
Old 20th Jun 2010, 00:45   #45 (permalink)
Man Bilong Balus long PNG
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Back in the ‘real world’ of Australia again, the party being over for another year but still looking for a bad bottle of Red
Age: 60
Posts: 1,857
Rutan;Your interpretation of that particular phrase (and mine for that matter) are quite possibly somewhat different from that of the Greens party`s meaning. Actually, I know that mine differs completely.

May I suggest that you investigate their policy for yourself?

Pinky the pilot is offline Report Post Reply
Old 20th Jun 2010, 11:00   #46 (permalink)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: YMML
Posts: 2,134
Send a message via Yahoo to OZBUSDRIVER
What I hate about the whole thing is that Albanese positively crowed about how THEY were increasing funds for CASA…with a tax increase
OZBUSDRIVER is offline Report Post Reply
Reply

 

 

9 comments to Avgas, $89.9m and CASA – Impropietry/ illegality/confidence in the Department?