Aerial Ag

No one in government has been able to explain the policy concept behind picking on aviation while leaving road transport exempt until 2014 and other road users out of the mix altogether.

The sad bleating from government that ‘it will only be same as the cost of a coffee for most airfares’ ignores two obvious facts — many small aviation companies affected are not in the business of selling seats and in small business, any cost increase puts on more pressure.

After eight years of drought, the aerial application sector and our clients, Australia’s farmers and primary producers, could do without a government inflicted cost hike, especially one that simply will not achieve its promoted aims.

Allegedly, the carbon package is about reducing emissions but in aviation there is no possibility of behaviour change to meet this end.

Aircraft operators have been pursuing efficiencies for decades, in aerial application’s case moving to bigger, more productive aircraft. But there is little room to move when alternative fuels are not available to general aviation, when it takes decades for new engines and new aircraft to be certified,and when, after eight drought-ridden years, there is little fat left to cut.

So the key question remains: why pick on aviation when there cannot be a large-scale, short-term behaviour shift to reduce carbon emissions?

Is it because there is a feeling among Labor politicians that aviation is a ‘silvertail’ activity? Is it because they think aviation is a small part of the economy and they can get away with it?

Or is it because they simply don’t know what contribution aviation makes to the economy —not for lack of being told by peak bodies?

Whatever the reason, this is one tax that will do no good for the industry, no good for aviation and no good for the government.

Mini-DAMPS welcome respite but . . .
CASA’s recent announcement that it is simplifying drug and alcohol testing for small companies with seven or less safety sensitive employees is a welcome respite, finally, for at least some in the industry.

Unfortunately, bigger companies are still confronted with the over-bureaucratic DAMP requirements that have led to considerable criticism.

Hopefully, the new rules for smaller companies will provide a ‘proof-of-concept’ that such an approach can still deliver against the program objectives without crippling industry into the bargain.

But credit to CASA for persevering with the simplification of the program, as recommended by AAAA and others from day one.

Imagine what could be achieved if CASA simplified a lot more of its systems, programs and regulations that seem to make no contribution to aviation safety but add thousands of dollars to the costs of operators big and small.

As with all things CASA, it appears to be one step forward and two back — take the recent NPRM on fatigue management and review of CAO 48, which proposed abolition of existing flight and duty time regimes for aerial application with no safety case as to why this was necessary.

Apart from the economic damage this would cause to the sector, already short of pilots, CASA seems to have lost so much corporate knowledge that it was unaware of the evolution of current requirements for aerial application in Part 137.Q and CAO 48.1.2.

Around 2002, AAAA proposed to CASA that the existing ‘non-standard’ exemptions be ‘normalised’ by inclusion in the relevant part rather than simply abolished ,as was the CASA proposal.

This resulted in a rewrite of CAO 48.1.2 to take account of the provisions of the exemptions, which had been available to the industry for over 10 years — and with a safe operational record.

AAAA proposed a safety case, risk assessment and evidence of safe operations in support of the rewrite, an interesting comparison to the approach of the CASA NPRM to simply change current regulations without any reason.