– Steve Hitchen
Federal budget week each year is always great fun: ministers throw money promises around like chocolates out of a piñata, opposition leaders make counter-promises that they'll never have to honour, and the media brands people "winners" and "losers". Customarily, aviation rarely gets mentioned except in the context of Western Sydney Airport. This year, funding announcements for remote and regional airports, ADS-B (see below) and sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) have all earned a place in the litany of PR that streams out of Canberra immediately the treasurer stops talking in the House of Reps. Most interesting of all announcements was the one that said nothing, only that more reforms could be expected in the white paper that is due sometime in the next month or so. By using the word "reforms" instead of "initiatives", is Minister King dropping hints that we can expect wholesale changes in the white paper that will alter the aviation landscape? And if that's so, will these reforms be simply changes or genuine improvements? Anyone who has studied CASA's 30-year regulatory reform program will understand the difference between a change and an improvement. Some of the white paper content has already been telegraphed; we're going sustainable whether we want to or not. But to make the aviation industry genuinely sustainable it's going to take a lot more than money for SAF development, and I am expecting the heralded reforms to include some initiatives handed to the industry from above rather than demanded from below.
There was really nothing else the federal government could have done but extend the ADS-B for VFR rebate further, although it was surprising to see it carry through for another three years. For various reasons that have been articulated to death over the past couple of months (mostly by me), the scheme had not reached the flight levels that it was expected to. Extending it by three years means it will be five years old when it's time for whoever is in power to close it or continue it beyond May 2027. If we haven't managed to equip the vast majority of the VFR fleet by then, even I would support lowering the scheme into a very deep grave. Oddly enough, it will be touch-and-go even with the ALP investing more money and time. Firstly, the numbers opting in are appallingly low; and secondly, there appears to be no fix to the shortage of avionics engineers on the horizon. And even if some fixes were launched this year, it would be three years at least before the impacts were felt. There is always the option to buy electronic conspicuity devices (EC), but many aircraft owners prefer to upgrade avionics that are in need of replacement anyway. This is all problematic given that ADS-B is the surveillance method of the future and VFR is largely not a part of that at the moment. Aviation is not recognised enough as the holistic eco-system that it is: change one thing and you have to change another; change another thing and you have to change a third. So whilst we welcome the extension to the rebate scheme, unless other things are done to facilitate it, VFR aircraft will still be a tiny blip on the ADS-B radar.
A near collision at Mildura (thanks for not calling it a "near miss") has led the ATSB to ask pilots to consider some optional radio calls at CTAFs. The optional call in question in this case was a "rolling" call. This is a call most GA pilots would make, so its a bit disappointing the crew of the Dash 8 missed it, but I don't think they are to blame. CASA's list of mandatory calls at CTAFs doesn't include this one, but it has become customary at most CTAFs around Australia anyway; hence, the ATSB report notes that the Warrior pilot made such a call. Over time, pilots that regularly (or always) operate from non-controlled airports develop insight into what will keep everyone in the circuit safe, and the fact that rolling calls are commonplace should send a message to CASA about what's important. CASA does promote the use of an "entering" call, but it lacks further information that other pilots in the circuit need to complete the picture. Are they doing an immediate take-off? Is an instructor holding them in place whilst they give a take-off briefing? An "entering" call alone creates uncertainty, which I believe is one of the main pillars that uphold an unsafe situation. I do believe a call that you are rolling on a runway further populating the circuit is an important one and should be mandatory. Mildura is not the only airport in Australia where intersecting runway thresholds are not visible from each other.
May your gauges always be in the green,
Hitch