Corporate Contrails

1989 will also see the commencement of the building of a world class FBO at Melbourne Airport which will support both Australian and international business aircraft operations.

This will be the first of its kind at Melbourne Airport and supplement the facilities provided at Essendon. Indeed some of the facilities at Essen un are also undergoing substantial facelifts with the newly formed Melbourne Corporate Jet Centre undergoing substantial rebuilding. The ABAA supports the development of these facilities which will form the basis of a strong business aircraft sector in Australia.

1989 will also be remembered as the year in which the Federal Government recognised, at last, that the airport needs of Sydney will only be met, in the short term, by the provision of additional runway capacity at KSA. The ABAA recognises that powerful political forces wished to keep the third runway off the agenda and the Federal Airports Corporation are to be congratulated for taking a stand on the matter based on sound professional judgement and factual support. Indeed, it was refreshing to see the Federal Airports Corporation adopt a very different stance to its predecessor. The impact of adopting the third runway option will provide some relief from a situation which is rapidly approaching the scale of a national disgrace.

1989 will also be remembered as the year in which the crumbling Air Traffic Control system in Australia was exposed to the realities of years of inaction by the former Department of Aviation. It is well known that morale among Air Traffic Controllers is at an all time low due, in our opinion, to two main factors.

They have not been provided with adequate modem tools with which to undertake their role and, more significantly, the regulatory environment within which they work is not in tune with modern aviation practices.

Rave Reviews?

1989 will also be remembered as the year of even more reviews and enquiries into various aspects of aviation. As an industry organisation we cooperate with the authorities but would prefer to see a positive outcome to these reviews. The members of our organisation have contributed valuable time to many of these reviews only to find that the Civil Aviation Authority chooses not to act on the recommendations. This time wasting which costs the industry many thousands of dollars each year should be ended.

The ABAA were shocked recently to find that the Civil Aviation Authority is once again reviewing “The future of Operational Control”. As far as the ABAA is concerned this merely repeats another review undertaken during 1987 and it was followed by extensive industry consultation through the auspices of the National Airspace Advisory Committee. We can only assume that again the CAA did not like the outcome of the previous considerations and now needs to waste further time not making decisions. (Shades of “Yes Minister’) Of greater concern to the ABAA is the fact that following a Ministerially directed review of the priority system undertaken by the CAA in 1988, the Minister does not propose to act on the recommendations. The review considered improvements which could be made to the priority system to minimise unfairness, confusion and complication. The CAA concluded that changes were desirable and that they could significantly lighten Air Traffic Control workload. Despite this recommendation going to the Department of Transport and Communications in March, we have been advised that the Minister will not be acting on the advice as we are expected to participate in yet another review. In this case it is a review into air traffic management procedures into Sydney Airport. As in all cases we have made a submission but remain to be convinced that anything positive will come out of the Department responsible.

We have, however, seen the first report of the Review of Regulatory Matters and support most of its initial findings. Our concern is, once again, that this must now be converted into positive action. The ABAA has also made a submission to the Senate Committee investigating the CAA and FAC but feel that although it may ultimately be informative for politicians, it is unlikely to serve any constructive purpose. Although it is giving the ‘small man’ an opportunity to be heard, it seems to us that the FAC and CAA need to be allowed to get on with the tasks they have been set. In our opinion both organisations are more responsive to market forces than their predecessors who simply ran on a political agenda.

The FAC has already demonstrated that it is willing to take an autonomous position based on professional standards. It still has some very difficult tasks ahead which it mainly inherited from its predecessor organisation. Although it was dealt a poor hand of cards, it is at least working rapidly to improve the situation. Although we have our differences over specific issues the evidence is that it is moving in the right direction.

The CAA has not yet demonstrated its ability to change, although, in our opinion, it was dealt an even poorer hand of cards than the FAC. It operates within a regulatory environment which is outdated and almost irrelevant to the needs of modern aviation. The ABAA sees as the priority of the CAA to rapidly overhaul regulation and its practical application. Given that the framework of regulation can change, surely we could all see a slimmer and more responsive CAA. It appears to us that it has spent almost all of its first year apologising for the things it is doing incorrectly. There are substantial cultural changes required before we see a CAA which truly relates to the industry at large.

It is of interest to the ABAA that the New Zealand Government has recently looked into the future of its civil aviation administration and the report prepared by consultants Swedavia recommends that its role should be mainly one of safety audit. As part of the study. Swedavia undertook a safety risk analysis of aviation in New Zealand compared with a range of other developed countries. This-novel way of assessing safety risks in aviation conforms to the general standards adopted by aviation authorities in approving such matters as EROPS for twin engined aircraft. For example, it assesses statistically the probability of an accident set against certain criteria. It concluded that risk of accident is much lower than in other countries but significantly lower than found in normal life patterns such as walking, driving cars, sleeping or working. The ABAA suggests that as our current standards are largely based on conditions prevailing during the DC-3 era, when equipment was primitive, a similar analysis could conclusively reveal that aviation in Australia is over regulated and that the aiming for such a low risk is an unacceptable financial burden on the community. This could present substantial opportunities for staff savings within the CAA with consequent reduction in overall costs to the industry.

New Office for Abaa

The ABAA has now established a secretariat with an office in the Main Terminal, Essendon Airport. Stephanie Pyrohiw is the secretariat coordinator and the office will provide a focus for ABAA activities as well as being a place where members may meet. For those who require information on the ABAA, its activities and pass on any views that you have regarding business aviation contact us on (03) 379 1477.