Can GA Afford the DofA?

There have been drastic reductions in the number of general aviation private/business hours flown. Many of the general aviation airports are reporting that aircraft movements have fallen by as much as 50% over the past few years.

New aircraft are impossible to sell and second-hand aircraft are being sold at figures which represent a fraction of their replacement value. Previously the price of second-hand aircraft bore a much closer relationship to new aircraft of similar type. Today, this relationship is almost non-existent. For example, the purchase price of a current model Cessna 172 is approximately $94,000, whilst a three-year-old 172 can be purchased for as low as $45,000-approximately 50% of the new price. Three years ago, a new model 172 would have cost $39,000 and the three-year-old model was being sold for about $30,000 – 75% of the new price.

The only reason why the prices of second-hand aircraft have not kept pace with their new counterparts is because of an over supply in the market. Flying is simply becoming too expensive. Many pilots just want to quit aviation and sell their aircraft as they can no longer afford to operate them. Many are changing to ultralights to escape the costs of avgas and Air Navigation Charges.

Private pilot numbers are dropping off at an alarming rate yet, in spite of a reduction in total aviation activity and the recession in the market, the Department of Aviation continues to expand. They continue to advertise for more staff and one can only assume that these people are to meet the requirements of the airlines or military operations, because the Department of Aviation has become a luxury that general aviation can no longer afford.

As taxpayers, we are well aware that the Government is having trouble balancing the budget. Understandably, they are looking very seriously at the cost of the Department of Aviation with an operating budget approaching $500 million per annum and it goes without saying that they seek to maximise their recovery from the aviation sector for the services of the Department of Aviation. Unfortunately, they fail to realise that the cost of the Department of Aviation far exceeds the propensity of the industry to pay. They have been in a runaway state for a number of years despite all efforts by the aviation industry to curtail their expansion.

We have now reached the situation where there are in excess of two employees in the Department of Aviation for every aircraft on the register in Australia. At the present time, Australian aircraft are flying, on average, two hours per week per employee in the Department of Aviation.

It is not hard to realise that should the Government seek 100% recovery from the aviation industry, an Air Navigation Charge of $200 per flying hour would not be unrealistic.

One cannot help but draw parallels between aviation in Australia and the USA. We are continents of similar size, flying similar aircraft and enjoying similar life-styles. The population of the USA is about 11 times that of Australia. General aviation flying hours in the USA amount to 40 million annually against Australia’s 1. 6 million. , the Americans fly 25 times the number of general aviation hours of their Australian counterparts. The primary reason can only be cost!

In the USA there are 4. 5 aircraft for every person employed by the FAA; in Australia, there are over two persons in the DofA for every aircraft.

The Minister for Aviation, the Hon. K. C. Beazley, has stated that it is the Government’s intention to change the method of cost recovery within the aviation sector. He proposes to introduce a system of airways and airport charges. The problem with this, and most of the other proposals, is that the cost of collection would form a substantial part of the actual money collected and, as such would not be cost-effective.

A similar theory was expounded in the infamous General Aviation Study. Unfortunately, it was also labour-intensive and would have resulted in a further expansion of the Department of Aviation as a larger force would be needed to tally up the landings, takeoffs and use of facilities around Australia. Whilst it may seem ideal in these times of high unemployment to create jobs, it would be out of the question to expect the aviation sector to finance this job creation programme.

The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association has long proposed a fuel tax in lieu of Air Navigation Charges. This proposal would be very simple to administer via the oil companies. It would be equitable as there is a direct relationship between fuel consumed and passenger seat kilometres travelled over the entire aviation spectrum from very sophisticated jets down to elementary trainers. A Beechcraft A36 Bonanza consumes avgas at the rate of approximately 24. 8 seat kilometres per litre whilst a Boeing 727 consumes after at a rate of 25 seat kilometres per litre.

A fuel tax would be a pay-as-you-go tax and would be directly related to the actual users of the services provided by the Department of Aviation – the travelling public – and not the aircraft itself, sitting on the ground. The Government is proposing a fuel tax in lieu of registration and third-party insurance for motorists. . . why not for aircraft?

The only possible objectors to this proposal must surely be those who are not paying their fair share of the costs of the system.

But is all this really necessary?

It has been clearly demonstrated that many users of Australian airspace are able to operate outside of the controls of the Department of Aviation. For many years the Gliding Federation has controlled all gliding operations in Australia with an impeccable record of safety and efficiency. The hang-gliding fraternity have also set its own standards and rules. The ultralight aircraft owners and pilots are in the process of setting up a framework of administration and standards from within their own ranks. All of these areas would surely wither and die if they had to support a monolith like the Department of Aviation.

In all but a handful of capital city areas, general aviation operates without the services of Air Traffic Control (ATC). General aviation pilots are responsible for and are quite capable of maintaining their own separation. In fact, in some areas, they even mix with RPT jet aircraft (and have done so for a number of years) without the services on the ground. It has been further demonstrated in times of union disputes, when the facilities of the Department of Aviation were withdrawn, general aviation continued to function normally. . . some would even say, more efficiently.

The true yardstick that should be ultimately applied when arriving at decisions to provide services or allocate costs is the need of that individual sector of aviation for specific services in their operation.

For example, if the operator of a high-speed passenger jet aircraft requires the services of ATC in order to maintain separation from other traffic, then he must be prepared to pay the total cost of that service. Similarly, if his operation requires an airport to have 4000 metres of reinforced runways, then it is unreasonable to impose the cost of construction and/or maintenance of that runway on an aircraft that could operate just as efficiently off 1000 metres of grass or gravel. The fact that the service is there is no justification for apportioning costs to those who do not require it.

General aviation is sick of being told what is good for it and being provided with services it neither requires nor can afford.

The Australian manufacturing industry is being told that it must automate or die. Industrial plants are using more and more automation and, to that end, we have seen the advent of industrial robots. With today’s high cost of labour, no-one could afford a handmade automobile or television set. We have replaced the policeman on point duty with automatic traffic lights – manually operated railway crossing gates with automatic boom gates-and the time has surely come when the operators of 6000 aircraft in Australia can no longer support or a force of over 12,000 employees in the Department of Aviation to oversee their operations.

In this electronic age it is possible for aircraft to navigate accurately and safely using sophisticated navigational devices, Omega or satellite navigation equipment with virtually no requirement for the multiplicity of land-based navigational aids. Where ground aids are needed, these can be low-cost solar-powered transistorised NDBs which require a minimum of maintenance.

Aircraft can be equipped with emergency transmitters which could be interrogated by satellites and pilots can be responsible for their own separation and operational control.

General aviation could set up its own regulatory authority, responsible for airworthiness and standards, similar to the Gliding Federation, and the entire system could operate outside of the present Department of Aviation structure, incurring negligible expense to the industry and the Australian taxpayer.

The Government cannot continually ignore their promised independence, for it is only through such an inquiry that these areas can be further examined.