– Steve Hitchen
RAAA's biennial convention is one of the most pivotal events on the aviation calendar, and has grown in both size and importance over the past few years. As we have seen with the recent demise of REX, the Australian government has come to recognise the critical role regional aviation plays, to the extent that they are prepared to get back into the airline game in order for REX–or some derivative of–to remain servicing routes. Although that sounds very altruistic, members of the RAAA are likely to have something to say about that given the Federal Government they engage with will become a competitor on some routes. That's not a sweet state of affairs, and it may be more prudent to let REX founder and present the subsidised routes to existing non-government regional airlines. Applying for the administration period to be extended and splashing another $30 million on REX are indicators that no potential buyer is in sight. If the Federal Government is an airline owner in June 2026 when RAAA convenes in Cairns, it will be a most interesting and enlightening gathering.
It's sounding like the Federal Government has hit reverse gear over the idea of creating AusCheck as a single issuing body (SIB) for ASICs. Their statement that they are "rethinking" most often means not that it's a bad idea, but that they can't actually make it happen. The discussion paper that kicked-off the SIB was very strident in its contention that the ASIC scheme was unwieldy and had too many security weak points that needed to be eliminated. If you read it, an SIB was the only solution. So if they are rethinking, what will the Department of Home Affairs do about all the problems highlighted in the Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS) referenced in the original discussion paper? For example, the government was concerned that having independent issuing bodies meant different outcomes because they each had their own processes. How do we solve that without an SIB? The RIS also nominated cyber security as a reason for going to an SIB; how will that be mitigated if the government changes its mind? There are probably only two options if the SIB doesn't go ahead: a system overhaul, or pretend the problems didn't exist in the first place. Whilst the latter might be tempting and represents the path of least resistance, it's the former that is desperately needed, SIB or not.
CASA turned 30 years old this month. The new regulator came to being on 6 July 1995 in the wake of a couple of airline disasters and fueled by a belief that the CAA was too close to the industry. It was no doubt a baby swaddled in controversy and political motivation. The decades immediately after were tumultuous to say the kindest thing; the regulator armed with a mandate to stay at arms length became detached from the industry too much, generating a distrust and disrespect that still has echoes today. Whilst I believe CASA has made huge in-roads in reconnecting with the aviation community, I have to wonder if the reasons that drove its creation have been addressed. Regional airline accidents have occurred under CASA's watch and many ATSB investigations over the 30 years have pondered the influence of oversight (or lack of) on the outcome. This is not an easy one to solve because it invites greater oversight when the general aviation community in particular is clamouring for the opposite. There are sounds coming from Canberra that CASA is moving more toward less regulatory burden on GA, evidenced by the GA Workplan and Class 5 medical. These are things unthinkable from the CASA of 1995, which shows a lot of progress, but issues arise sporadically that hark back to the disconnected and over-bearing years of CASA in its original form. To say nothing has changed in the past 30 years is wrong, but I do wonder if the people the clove the CAA in two would think the status quo is an end that justifies their means.
May your gauges always be in the green,
Hitch