There's an old saying that goes like this: if you see hoof prints in the sand, don't go looking for zebras. The most obvious cause of hoof prints is horses, so that's where you should start looking. Sometimes in the general aviation community we start looking for zebras, usually because we have a firm belief that there are zebras in the area. That was evident again this week when CASA issued the new CAAP 166-1 covering ops at non-controlled airfields. The CAAP ignored the fact that a discussion paper was still active over the issue of the most appropriate frequency, making it seem that CASA had decided the matter in its own favour already. Aviation's conspiracy theorists saw sinister in the shadows, but it seems the answer was more logical. In a bureaucracy suffering from transition blues and skills issues, the most likely answer is a complete and utter balls-up. They have history; who remembers the Part 61 implementation (like we could forget)? The CAAP shouldn't have been issued whilst the DP was still active and CASA was yet to formally settle the matter, but someone at Aviation House didn't bring their thinking cap to work that day and went ahead anyway. There's an apology now in the public domain, but a lot of damage has been done as the zebra hunters are still stalking their prey.
And another controversy is set to rise over non-controlled airports, generated by an ERSA entry for Mildura (YMIA) in Victoria. The entry says simply that balloons and aerobatics are banned within 5 nm of the airport. That has spawned the question of what head-of-power the airport operator has to issue operational directives that don't involve their airport. I can think of one airport owner who would dearly love to ban model aircraft within 5 nm of his runway, but knows he can't because he has no power to do so. There is no question that operators have the right to set procedures for entering the circuit, landing, taking off and ground movement, but can they control any operation they like? What if the ERSA entry covered 10 nm? Can they ban over-flights completely? I can see a situation where an airport operator could force a competitor out of business if they have the power to dictate operations in the airspace around them. That might be a bit extreme, but somewhere between no control and total control is a fuzzy boundary that needs to be set sharper.
But there is some good news around Aviation House: the response to the medical DP. I spoke with CASA people earlier this year and they were sweating toxins that the industry was still not engaging with the consultation process. A quick ring around showed that some major players (RAAA, TAAAF and RFACA) had elected not to respond or leave the matter up to individual members. To me, that reflects that the general aviation community may not be all playing from the same music sheet, creating a cacophony of noise that CASA now has to collate and analyse. There were strong, no-nonsense submissions from both AOPA Australia and RAAus, but again not necessarily in harmony with each other. Int the end it seems the industry did come to the party with feedback. CASA may be happy with the quality and quantity of the responses, but it could also serve them up some headaches sorting it all out.
Next week's Last Minute Hitch will be frantically tapped-out on a laptop from somewhere at Aviatex, the general aviation expo that precedes Wings Over Illawarra. Aviatex has attracted exhibitors like Cirrus, Sling, QBE, Hawker Pacific, CASA, Tecnam, Bose, OzRunways, AvPlan and Evektor as well as many associations and government bodies. The support this expo has received from the industry and its relative proximity to Sydney could see it becoming one of Australia's most important aviation expos. Aviatex starts on Friday 5 May and runs right throughout the following two days of WOI as well. It seems to me that we're in for a great three days of talking aviation! The full exhibitor list is on the Aviatex website.
May your gauges always be in the green,
Hitch