– Steve Hitchen
When pioneers exit the world, the industries and communities that remain are rightly bereft; people central to culture and collective memory are suddenly gone. This is the case with Max Hazelton, founder of Hazelton Airlines (now Rex), key figure in the primeval days of GA in NSW and a maverick that tested the patience of regulators. People talk about "the right stuff" when it comes to astronauts and fighter pilots, but there was a certain type of "right stuff" that was needed to pioneer GA as well, and Max Hazelton had plenty of that. One of the most remarkable things about Max was that he had the cerebral capacity to function just as well the knock-about GA world as he could in the structured, turbo-prop environment of regional airlines. I suppose to him it was all just flying and flying was what he did. His death last Sunday has weakened GA's collective memory and deprived us of a primary source of great yarns and one of aviation's most loved characters. But, he left so much behind that there is no chance he will fade into forgotten history. The best pioneers never do.
Confusion is, once again, king. Last week CASA hinted that something was coming about individual instructors and yesterday released the details. It has gone to the heart of a key issue that many in the GA community believe would help revitalise the training industry: instructors who can operate alone at regional airports or with aero clubs free of the heavy burden imposed by CASR Part 141. That's what many GA advocates believed CASA was about to deliver. However, CASA has made it clear that this initiative is only about making approvals easier, and that operating as an individual instructor has always been possible. Cue the confusion. If advocates for individual instructors are right, and what CASA has said is correct, then GA has always had the ability to solve a key issue; we just didn't do it. We can also read by CASA introducing a streamlined application that they believe the more onerous application process was the key reason why more instructors weren't taking up the single-person option. Add to that feedback delivered to CASA by some Part 141 operators that object to individual instructors on the grounds that it will erode their revenue streams if they have to compete with flight training options that have lower cost bases. Then there is the argument that this is lowering instructor standards because a Grade 3 can operate without the constant oversight of Grade 1s and Grade 2s. Yikes. This is a lot to process, and if you're having trouble following it, you have plenty of mates. I'll try to reason this through a bit. I believe individual instructors fit in the space that Part 141 operators can't economically go. Aero clubs in more remote areas are stymied in their ability to recruit new people to aviation because although they have the aeroplanes and the airport, they have no avenue for GA flight training. In this scenario, individual instructors wouldn't compete with Part 141 operators because those operators don't offer services in those regions. As for accusations of lowering standards, that's something for CASA to assess and resolve. But it could be a moot point. All of this could very well change nothing at all because no-one actually applies. A streamlined process may not be enough incentive for an instructor to go it alone, carrying all the burdens of being the CEO at the same time as trying to teach students.
Ken Cannane, Executive Director of the Aviation Maintenance Repair and Overhaul Business Association (AMROBA) this week said, Ever since the mid-1970s, civil aviation has been subject to more government administrative changes than any other industry sector of business managed by the Federal government. It was said in the context of the upcoming ALP aviation white paper. Cannane is right: aviation has been through a lot of changes, but still finds itself in dire straits as an industry. Most of those changes have been ineffective or actually contributed to the problem. Is it therefore fair to expect that another white paper is going to produce earth-rocking epiphanies that lead to GA recovery and strength? We'd be fools to bank on that; history proves that cynicism is too often justified. That compels the GA community to wonder if no change is better than bad change, given that good change is so often not on the agenda. It is possible to change a system so much that it is no longer fit for purpose, and no number of inquiries and studies will ever improve it until someone has the courage and power to scrap the old and instigate the new. Don't expect that from the white paper.
May you gauges always be in the green,
Hitch