CASA announced today that they have developed special low-viz category of operations for safe landings in large passenger aircraft. According to them, this will save many dollars, prevent flight delays and enable aircraft crews to use technology available to them. As I stand to applaud CASA, the question that starts rattling around in my mind is: where was that logic when they removed RNAVs from 30 airports around Australia in 2010? In a move of bewildering mis-logic, CASA canceled the RNAVs at any airport that wasn't certified or registered. The spiel from Aviation House at the time was that they couldn't guarantee an obstacle-free path to private airports, therefore, to increase safety, the RNAVs had to go. That sort of ignored CASR 139.365, which requires builders of such obstacles to notify CASA. They also pointed out that the runway condition could change and the pilot on the RNAV wouldn't know; a completely redundant argument if the RNAV was to only a circling minima, not a runway. So now you have aircraft who can't use technology built into their GNSS units blundering home blind over mountains, which is apparently safer than an RNAV approach that may have an obstacle in its path that CASA already know about. Maybe the problem really was that Qantas doesn't use ALAs.
CASA DAS Mark Skidmore has called for an end to the vitriolic spleen-venting manner in which many members of the aviation community and CASA staff have prefered to deal with each other over the years. This is absolutely necessary for general aviation in Australia to go forward. I have said it before, but will repeat it now: only good, considered argument is of any value. No-one is listening to wailing and teeth-gnashing from either side. All it does is further entrench positions on both sides, which means stagnated reform, which in itself just generates more vitriol. So, to go forward, those voices need to be ignored, which makes them pretty pointless in the long run. I apply that equally to members of the aviation community and to CASA staff.
Cirrus has delayed the certification date for their SF50 Vision until July-ish. News outlets in the USA are saying that the company is blaming the hoops the FAA is putting them through for the target date being pushed out. All aircraft manufacturers who release new types are subjected to this. After years and millions of dollars in development, the National Aviation Authorities scrutinise the aircraft almost to death. So, can we really blame manufacturers who keep presenting us with old platforms rather than modern designs? It's cheaper and less onerous. The NAAs really have to look at this, because certification and the associated cost is holding back progress in the aviation industry. Let's hope Cirrus doesn't have to delay their jet again; it's been on the cards for long enough already.
AMROBA's Ken Cannane is keeping the pressure on the CASA Board to legislate on Aviation Safety Regulation Review (ASRR) reforms to make them permanent. Cannane says this is unlikely to happen before the next Federal Election, due in the second half of this year. The prime question should not be "when", but "if". The CASA board can't present legislation to the house; a member of parliament, most likely the responsible minister, needs to do that. Right now, Warren Truss is on the cusp of retirement, and is likely to abdicate the task to his successor. All it needs is for that successor to take a negative stance on aviation and we're back in the mire. I would love to see a statement from CASA Chair Jeff Boyd on what they intend to do, and when they intend to do it.
May your gauges always be in the green,
Hitch