I have developed a bad habit of having the odd glass of scotch as I sit before my computer at night. Under normal circumstances, there is nothing evil in this, except at times I lose control of it and my keyboard gets more than I do. You can guarantee this is often the result of reading something so flabbergasting that my fingers lose their grip on the glass and gravity seizes the moment.
It happened the other night when I was browsing through CASA’s CAAP 166-2(0). That’s the one we all received that gave us tips on how to avoid each other in the vicinity of “non-controlled aerodromes”. The scotch hit the keyboard just after I finished reading paragraph 11.2, which says:
So as not to impede commercial aviation, pilots flying recreational or sport aircraft for their own enjoyment, or pilots flying GA aircraft for their own leisure, should consider giving way to aircraft being used for “commerce” provided that the inconvenience to their own operation is not great and it can be done safely.
Is CASA serious? They are effectively stating that if one aircraft has to be inconvenienced for separation purposes then it should the one that is not earning any money. If I dissect this logic six ways from Sunday I don’t think I will ever see the sense behind it. It is a good thing CASA advises commercial operators not to expect the priority; I suspect they won’t be getting it too often.
And if you want to be really confused, set this advice against the speech Director John McCormick gave to the Queensland branch of the Aviation Law Association. “CASA”, he said, “is not an economic regulator.” If John spoke with a non-forked tongue, then paragraph 11.2 has no place in the CAAP.
Having already painted my placard, I have to admit that even I have offered my position in the circuit to the odd King Air or Saab 340, but only because I didn’t want my tail shredded when they caught up to me on downwind. It is a courtesy to the other pilot to make their life easier. It’s like not pulling in front of a slowing truck at the traffic lights: they appreciate you not doing it and you get to live. And as for medivac, I’ll do an extra circuit if it means getting out of their way.
The crux of my complaint here is that CASA has devalued private aviation. Here’s a truism that is not shouted loud enough or often enough: PPLs put money into the aviation pool and they don’t take any out. That’s something you can’t say about commercial aviation. Right now, the aviation money pool is looking somewhat like a puddle, so why slap such a huge contributor of cash?
Already there are enough supplemental charges that effectively reduce the amount of money that PPLs can pour into the puddle: CASA exam charges, medical charges, ASICs, landing charges at controlled airports and so on. If, for example, a PPL has a medical and the DAME charges $140 and CASA jumps in for another $75, that’s $215 the pilot no longer has to give to a flying school or aircraft hirer. Nowadays that’s about an hour in a C172 that won’t be flown. Yes, CPLs have to pay charges too, but the impact is less because they can claim it on tax.
CASA has said that private aviation shouldn’t impede commercial aviation, yet the impact of any inconvenience will be greater in monetary terms on a private pilot than it will be on a commercial pilot flying a commercial operation.
There is only one way to ensure complete fairness here: the priority must be based on operational considerations, not on why the aircraft is in the air. Why should private pilots be forced to foot the bill? They’re trying to reduce their costs too.
Sure, paragraph 11.2 is only “guidance”, but you can bet CASA expects you to take notice of what they say, because they won’t be happy if you ignore the rest of the CAAP that’s for sure.
Next time I read a CAAP, I might skip the scotch and go for a handful of jelly beans…at least they bounce.
May your gauges always be in the green,
Hitch