I had the pleasure of taking the new Aeroprakt A32 Vixxen for a squirt around Westernport Bay during he week. I won't pre-empt the flight test coming up in our Nov-Dec print issue except to say that the Vixxen is a brilliant little aeroplane and I had great fun flying it ... even if my landing was, shall we say, sub-optimal. I think both GA and RA-Aus pilots are going to have a good long look at this machine; it's a wonderful two-seat option.
You can catch up with the demonstrator yourself at Ausfly next week. Yikes ... only a week to go and so much to get organised. Providing the weather holds for those of us getting there by air, the turn-out is looking to be very healthy indeed. With a full-blown air show and about 40 exhibitors on the program, there's really not a lot of reason to stay home. But if we're flying in, be warned that CASA has hinted at ramp checks, so pilots would do well to get all the docs, plans, weight and balance all squared away before being greeted in the GA park.
It's taken a few years, but I think now general aviation is in a position to officially declare the ADS-B mandate a complete debacle. If Dick Smith is right, the cost impact in the original estimates was inaccurate by nearly $64 million! Anything that far out is certainly a debacle, and completely scuttles the justification for the project. You can't blame AOPA for withdrawing their support. From the outset, the grand plan was for the cost of the equipment to be subsidised by decommissioning radars and pouring the cost savings into ADS-B. The radars weren't decommissioned, the subsidy never happened, and CASA and Airservices ploughed ahead regardless of the fact that their Regulatory Impact Statement is now of value only for getting the fire started. In essence, there is no RIS for what we've ended up with, but it's unlikely to be reviewed in any way that will result in change; if it did, the goverment would have to wear a substantial part of the $64 million. Here's what we need to do: STOP! With the radars re-commissioned and ADS-B already operating above FL270, are we really in a hurry now to mandate? Go back, look at the figures again, see where we're really at and get an understanding of genuine cost. But please, don't point at the original RIS as justification for forging ahead.
The impending certification of the Cirrus SF50 Vision will probably bring to a close one of aviation's great misjudgments: the very light jet (VLJ) concept. About 10 years ago, it was considered possible to make a private jet that would sell for around $1 million. New designs were coming from everywhere: Adam, Spectrum, Diamond, Epic ... remember ATG with the Javelin? There was so much money poured into so many bottomless pits, and one by one projects shut down. In the meantime, Cessna and Embraer found that people would pay more money for a better idea, and the Mustang and Phenom series have proven very successful. In the background was the Cirrus project, and even it stalled until a Chinese company bought Cirrus and suddenly there was cash to keep developing. It's been a long road for Cirrus, and the final sell price is set to be $US1.96 million, somewhat higher than the VLJ target, but customers will be getting a better aeroplane for the money.
CASA's latest corporate plan is bound to draw comments from some sectors of the aviation community, most notably those that are tired of words and just want change now. There is some thought out there that this plan is simply window dressing and created to give the impression that things are changing, whilst the real intent at CASA is business as usual. However, there is another way of looking at this: if genuine change is on the way, we would expect a corporate plan that is exactly like this one. That's our quandry: a well-constructed facade and a meaningful road map to change would look exactly the same. How we accept the corporate plan will depend upon whether the glasses we decide to look through are rose-coloured or mud-coloured. I have my ideas, and I'd like to hear yours.
What do we think about private companies running ATC towers? The big carrot is competition for Airservices and theoretically reduced costs, and if there is any basis in reality, you'd have to say we're onto a winner. But private companies have an obligation to themselves and their stakeholders to increase profits year over year. There is only two ways of doing that: raise the prices or cut the costs. It's very hard to raise the prices in the sort of competitive environment that privatisation is supposed to bring, leaving cost-cutting as the most obvious path, and that results in reduced training, lower staffing levels, poor investment in technology and decaying infrastructure. However, competition would probably give Airservices a much-needed clip behind the ear and force them to straighten up and fly right. No harm in that at all!
May your gauges always be in the green,
Hitch