From: Mike Borgelt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
More than another A$130 as they will charge the DAME more for his status
too.
Add in the reduced numbers of pilots due to the security nonsense(seen the
number of single engine for sale in the Aviation Trader recently? Now up to
2 full pages from about 2/3 of a page a year ago) and the DAME will have
to raise his fee considerably as well.
"We'll all be rooned", said Hanrahan, "before the year is out."
This is because the government has decided to force CASA to 100% cost
recovery.
About 80% was coming from fuel taxes and of the remaining $20,000,000 the
goverment was kicking in $5,000,000 from consolidated revenue. They have
now decided to cease this and CASA is forced to look around for things they
can charge for.(Merely cutting employee numbers by 25% won't occur to
them).
Well, since most other service organisations would see such a move as dopey
and disastrous I'm not really surprised they aren't following that path.
Besides, they've cut much more than that in their CAA/CASA history already.
AFAIK the GFA and RAAus subsidy was coming from the $5,000,000. I'd say
there is a good chance that is under threat.
Possibly, but by no means certain, Mike. Your political analysis is as
simplistic as your instruments are sophisticated. :)
The head of CASA (CEO no less!) told me only ten minutes ago (last page,
current issue, Flight Safety Australia) that:
"...A higher priority for the safety of passenger carrying operations
inevitably means that resources will need to be reduced in other areas where
CASA has had a strong presence in the past. We are looking at the
possibility of a greater level of self administration in, for example,
aerial agriculture and sport and recreational aviation."
and... "An outcome of these reviews that I expect to see is an outsourcing
of some of our low risk regulatory service functions to suitably qualified
individuals or organisations within industry."
So CASA is actually going to try to pass even more of its work over to the
RAA, AUF and ...you guessed it! ... the GFA! It may be that they'll reduce
the fee they pay (not a subsidy as you love to call it) to the GFA but it's
equally likely that it will stay the same. After all, if the GFA doesn't do
it, it would cost CASA a lot more to do it themselves.
If it does go down, the GFA will need to recoup the money from you and me
but I'd say that it's still cheaper for us to have the regulatory function
done by the volunteers of the GFA than the professionals in CASA. Our main
risk is that a big outfit like FSI or some other startup group might bid on
the gliding contract (or all the sport/recreation contracts to get economies
of scale) and get it. Like private building certifiers. A few of my old
mates in the business and I have discussed bidding on the gliding contract
in opposition to the GFA. We've got a pretty good CV to offer and it could
be a good way of adding some spice to our retirements. I'm sure we could
undercut them on price and guarantee to produce a greater level of
compliance. I like the light-handed methods pioneered by the FAA that you so
admire. For example, I'm sure the Form 2 on your Ventus would be done VERY
thoroughly if you knew it might be audited as it crossed my desk! I might
get to give you your annual check in the BD-4 (just joking... sorry,
auditing, you understand).
See - there are MUCH worse possibilities than having the GFA as your
regulator! :)
While we're on the GFA's regulatory role, there has been some discussion
that the GFA pays this too much attention compared to its marketing and
promotional role. It probably needs to be said that the regulatory role is
one it is CONTRACTED to provide in return for money paid by CASA. If it
fails to carry out the job it can be sued for breach of contract - among
other things. Not only is that its contractual role, that is the role it
was actually formed to provide back in the forties of the last century and
which its whole structure is designed around. If anybody wants to do
promotion of gliding (a job the GFA is not actually suited to) I don't think
they'd find any serious opposition from the GFA. I said this some time ago
but I notice the usual suspects still prefer whingeing to doing something
about it.
Only about two of all the glider pilots in Australia get paid. Almost
everything done is done by volunteers -investigating accidents, fitting
Flarm, stopping gliding dying - the lot. If anybody doesn't like how it's
done it really is up to them to do it better themselves. But the high
pitched, whining noise on this list really is p...ing me off and
exacerbating my hearing loss. Lets all go gliding for a while.
Cheers (and still a Merry Christmas) :) :) :)
Graeme Cant
Mike
Borgelt Instruments - manufacturers of quality soaring instruments
phone Int'l + 61 746 355784
fax Int'l + 61 746 358796
cellphone Int'l + 61 428 355784
Int'l + 61 429 355784
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
website: www.borgeltinstruments.com
_______________________________________________
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net
To check or change subscription details, visit:
http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
_______________________________________________
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net
To check or change subscription details, visit:
http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
