My Letter dated 30/5/15 was received mid week, can anyone tell what changes have been made with regard to this...
Some of the changes already made relate to check pilots conducting proficiency checks, low level rating and aerial mustering training and flight testing, fire fighting operations, aerial application proficiency checks and R22 and R44.
AHIA: Flight crew training
-
County
- Gold Wings
- Posts: 159
- Joined: Dec 2011
-
CYHeli
- 4th Dan
- Posts: 1825
- Joined: Jun 2006
Re: AHIA: Flight crew training
Sorry County, we have requested and are waiting for a summary document of the expected changes.
A summary would save many people time and money in responding to Mr Skidmore's letter asking (or nominating) changes when they are already coming.
A cynic would say that CASA can then claim improved consultation and having addressed raised issues, when in reality, the changes are already earmarked. If they don't get on with it, Part 61 will have a birthday before meaningful change happens.
A summary would save many people time and money in responding to Mr Skidmore's letter asking (or nominating) changes when they are already coming.
A cynic would say that CASA can then claim improved consultation and having addressed raised issues, when in reality, the changes are already earmarked. If they don't get on with it, Part 61 will have a birthday before meaningful change happens.
What you leave behind is not what is engraved in stone monuments, but what is woven into the lives of others.
-
hand in pants
- 4th Dan
- Posts: 1615
- Joined: Sep 2006
Re: AHIA: Flight crew training
CYHeli, Part 61 needs a funeral before it's first birthday.........................
Hand in Pants, I'm thinking, my god, that IS huge!!!!!!!!
-
Imout
- 1st Dan
- Posts: 217
- Joined: Nov 2005
Re: AHIA: Flight crew training
Yeah I don't think it needs a funeral. I think it just needs to go on "Lite and Easy" for a while then in the future we work on portion sizes!!
-
froginasock
- 1st Dan
- Posts: 202
- Joined: Aug 2008
Re: AHIA: Flight crew training
Well done AHIA .. from casa site ... http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?W ... =PC_102547
CASA has responded to feedback from the aviation community on new flight review requirements for the low-level rating.
As a result the 12 month flight review requirement for the low-level rating has now been extended to 24 months.
Feedback also indicated concerns with the new requirement to maintain a minimum of two hours of low-level flying over six months. This requirement has been removed.
Most of the feedback on the low-level rating came from the helicopter industry, which put forward a case to show there were minimal safety benefits from the new requirements while they created administrative difficulties for pilots and air operators.
However, as CASA and the aviation community have identified aerial mustering as a higher risk activity there are recent experience requirements for these operations.
Aerial mustering pilots will be required to have flown a minimum of 20 hours of aerial mustering operations in the preceding 12 months. If mustering pilots cannot meet this requirement they can complete a flight review, proficiency check or flight test that includes aerial mustering.
The changes to the low-level rating have been made by an exemption to the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations Part 61. In due course the regulations will be amended to include the changes.
...
Frog
CASA has responded to feedback from the aviation community on new flight review requirements for the low-level rating.
As a result the 12 month flight review requirement for the low-level rating has now been extended to 24 months.
Feedback also indicated concerns with the new requirement to maintain a minimum of two hours of low-level flying over six months. This requirement has been removed.
Most of the feedback on the low-level rating came from the helicopter industry, which put forward a case to show there were minimal safety benefits from the new requirements while they created administrative difficulties for pilots and air operators.
However, as CASA and the aviation community have identified aerial mustering as a higher risk activity there are recent experience requirements for these operations.
Aerial mustering pilots will be required to have flown a minimum of 20 hours of aerial mustering operations in the preceding 12 months. If mustering pilots cannot meet this requirement they can complete a flight review, proficiency check or flight test that includes aerial mustering.
The changes to the low-level rating have been made by an exemption to the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations Part 61. In due course the regulations will be amended to include the changes.
...
Frog
-
AHIA
- 2nd Dan
- Posts: 470
- Joined: Feb 2012
Re: AHIA: Flight crew training
AHIA Research Project. (Our thanks to Airwaves - June 2015)
Are current pilot graduates enough to sustain our industry next year?
How do we estimate the number of new pilots needed to keep the industry ticking over during 2015-2016. What is the method of calculation which can be used to gauge investment needed if growth returns to the helicopter industry? Is there enough work to keep flying instructors gainfully employed when growth stalls, as is the situation today?
Since 30 June 2014 the CASA Aircraft Register showed an increase of only fifteen helicopter registrations over sixteen months, or an annual growth rate of less than 1%. Prior to June 2014 the industry’s long term growth rate was around 7% each year, then considered as a good result.
To find the answers, CASA’s Annual Report 2013-2014 is a very useful tool. On 30 June 2104 there were 3,308 pilots consisting of 845 ATPL; 1,667 CPL and 802 PPL licenses. The registered helicopters were then 2,104 helicopters.
This shows 1.5 licenses for every helicopter. This calculation does not consider those who have left the industry due age, accident, death or change of career and replaced by new comers.
To calculate the output from flying schools during 2015-2016, assuming fleet size remains unchanged (as it is now), the CASA report at 30 June 2014 may have the answer. For example, the number of ATPL is 845. On average 72 new licenses were issued each year over five years. When adjusted down for the growth of then of 7% per year, we need 67 new ATPL licenses per year.
Of particular interest to flying schools is the number of CPL graduates needed to sustain 1,667 licenses. Allowing for the 7% adjustment shown above, we need 250 per year. This shows annual loss rate of ATPL folks is 8% and CPL 15% which is the reverse of what is expected from the older ATPL pilot group.
A closer look at the 802 private pilot figures shows we need 110 new licence holders each year to maintain the status quo. In fact, PPL and CPL loss rates are almost identical, an interesting coincidence?
If the number of licenses remains unchanged, during 2015-2016, schools have to produce about 67 ATPL, 250 CPL and 110 PPL graduates. Assuming there are 25 or so active schools, their output would be at least ten CPL students for each school. If they are a Part 141 school then this is barely enough for work for two instructors and their CFI.
The AHIA is very concerned CASA may have not issued any ATPL licenses since September 2014. According to CASA sources, this situation may continue for a year or so. As you read this we estimate we are now 134 under the required number. But what about the large number of ME IFR aeromedical helicopters soon heading our way and the crews needed for the military civil training programme – Australian ATPL pilots may be in short supply.
So where do they come from? Overseas crewmembers on 457 Visas? And what happens to our ATPL trainers? Do they close their doors?
Septics are encouraged to look in detail at CASA's Flight Examiners Handbook version 1.2 of Mar '15 and associated Form 61-FEA. Look at currency requirements for Flight Examiner Ratings. In particular, how will CASA staff and other now ATOs maintain their currency? Have a peek at the Low Level Rating Flight Test Endorsement. The Handbook and Form run to around 240 pages.
Feedback from those managing training schools is most welcome. We need to update this thread; in this way we can see what has to be done as our work with CASA continues.
AHIA Secretary
Are current pilot graduates enough to sustain our industry next year?
How do we estimate the number of new pilots needed to keep the industry ticking over during 2015-2016. What is the method of calculation which can be used to gauge investment needed if growth returns to the helicopter industry? Is there enough work to keep flying instructors gainfully employed when growth stalls, as is the situation today?
Since 30 June 2014 the CASA Aircraft Register showed an increase of only fifteen helicopter registrations over sixteen months, or an annual growth rate of less than 1%. Prior to June 2014 the industry’s long term growth rate was around 7% each year, then considered as a good result.
To find the answers, CASA’s Annual Report 2013-2014 is a very useful tool. On 30 June 2104 there were 3,308 pilots consisting of 845 ATPL; 1,667 CPL and 802 PPL licenses. The registered helicopters were then 2,104 helicopters.
This shows 1.5 licenses for every helicopter. This calculation does not consider those who have left the industry due age, accident, death or change of career and replaced by new comers.
To calculate the output from flying schools during 2015-2016, assuming fleet size remains unchanged (as it is now), the CASA report at 30 June 2014 may have the answer. For example, the number of ATPL is 845. On average 72 new licenses were issued each year over five years. When adjusted down for the growth of then of 7% per year, we need 67 new ATPL licenses per year.
Of particular interest to flying schools is the number of CPL graduates needed to sustain 1,667 licenses. Allowing for the 7% adjustment shown above, we need 250 per year. This shows annual loss rate of ATPL folks is 8% and CPL 15% which is the reverse of what is expected from the older ATPL pilot group.
A closer look at the 802 private pilot figures shows we need 110 new licence holders each year to maintain the status quo. In fact, PPL and CPL loss rates are almost identical, an interesting coincidence?
If the number of licenses remains unchanged, during 2015-2016, schools have to produce about 67 ATPL, 250 CPL and 110 PPL graduates. Assuming there are 25 or so active schools, their output would be at least ten CPL students for each school. If they are a Part 141 school then this is barely enough for work for two instructors and their CFI.
The AHIA is very concerned CASA may have not issued any ATPL licenses since September 2014. According to CASA sources, this situation may continue for a year or so. As you read this we estimate we are now 134 under the required number. But what about the large number of ME IFR aeromedical helicopters soon heading our way and the crews needed for the military civil training programme – Australian ATPL pilots may be in short supply.
So where do they come from? Overseas crewmembers on 457 Visas? And what happens to our ATPL trainers? Do they close their doors?
Septics are encouraged to look in detail at CASA's Flight Examiners Handbook version 1.2 of Mar '15 and associated Form 61-FEA. Look at currency requirements for Flight Examiner Ratings. In particular, how will CASA staff and other now ATOs maintain their currency? Have a peek at the Low Level Rating Flight Test Endorsement. The Handbook and Form run to around 240 pages.
Feedback from those managing training schools is most welcome. We need to update this thread; in this way we can see what has to be done as our work with CASA continues.
AHIA Secretary
-
AHIA
- 2nd Dan
- Posts: 470
- Joined: Feb 2012
Re: AHIA: Flight crew training
At last! CASA DAS states in his May newsletter industry has a valid complaint about Part 61
The CASA Briefing – e-newsletter – 29 May 2015.
From the Director of Aviation Safety, Mark Skidmore.
I have been looking carefully at issues surrounding the development and implementation of new regulations to make sure CASA is learning lessons from the past. This has been my focus as we progress with the implementation of the new licensing suite of regulations that was introduced in September 2014. I fully accept CASA can make improvements in both the way regulations are developed and implemented.
We do start with the intention to make new regulations as clear as possible, using plain language without unnecessary complexities. We most certainly do not set out to write regulatory requirements that are hard to understand. But like many good intentions our goal can get lost during the journey and, for a range of reasons, the result can sometimes be regulations that are more complex than desired.
As the aviation regulations form part of Commonwealth legislation the legal framework and style governing all Commonwealth legislation must be applied. In addition, as our regulations often set standards for a wide range of complex aviation operations they may need to be detailed and comprehensive. In short, it is not always easy or even possible to create ‘simple’ regulations. But having said that, it is CASA’s job to strive towards the goal of clarity, coherence and precision using plain and easy to understand language.
In reviewing the development and implementation of the licensing suite I can see a number of improvements we can make in our processes. The first is to do more work up front before the regulations are made. This may involve testing the regulatory proposals in a practical way with the aviation community or running a pilot program to ensure implementation plans are optimal. At all stages we need a better dialogue with the aviation community to allow us to communicate, consult meaningfully and to listen carefully to all constructive feedback. Most importantly, CASA needs to put more effort into educating and training our own people about the new regulations and their implementation so we can give clear and consistent advice to the aviation community.
I recently wrote to all pilots and flying training organisations asking for further feedback on the licensing suite and I am pleased to say the response has been very helpful. At the time of writing more than 60 people and organisations have replied to my letter and I thank everyone for taking the time to respond. A wide range of comments and suggestions have been received, and all of these are being carefully reviewed and assessed.
While CASA will not be able to adopt every suggestion, we will act where feedback identifies issues or problems that should be addressed in the interest of getting optimal outcomes from the new regulations.
Please keep your comments coming.
You can read my letter in full at update on new flight crew licensing regulations.
Safe flying - Mark Skidmore AM.
_________________________________________
Australian Flying Magazine quick to respond.
Editor Steve Hitchen wrote in his e-news, ‘The Last Minute Hitch’ dated 29 May ’25 as follows:
“It seems to me that CASA is telling us gently that we can forget one of the Forsyth recommendations: plain-English regulations. In his CASA Briefing Newsletter for May, Mark Skidmore points out that they would like to get complexity out of the CASRs, but the government drafting style is getting in the way. I have no doubt he's right."
"The legislative drafting style is unwieldy, legalese gobbledygook designed to be interpreted by only legal minds, not the general public to which they apply. The incongruity is that the style actually impedes aviation safety rather than promote it because the average person has no idea what many regulations actually say."
"In 2010, US president Barack Obama signed an act that forced US regulations to be written in plain English. It's way overdue that we had something similar happen here, even if it's only for aviation safety regulations."
AHIA - Secretary
The CASA Briefing – e-newsletter – 29 May 2015.
From the Director of Aviation Safety, Mark Skidmore.
I have been looking carefully at issues surrounding the development and implementation of new regulations to make sure CASA is learning lessons from the past. This has been my focus as we progress with the implementation of the new licensing suite of regulations that was introduced in September 2014. I fully accept CASA can make improvements in both the way regulations are developed and implemented.
We do start with the intention to make new regulations as clear as possible, using plain language without unnecessary complexities. We most certainly do not set out to write regulatory requirements that are hard to understand. But like many good intentions our goal can get lost during the journey and, for a range of reasons, the result can sometimes be regulations that are more complex than desired.
As the aviation regulations form part of Commonwealth legislation the legal framework and style governing all Commonwealth legislation must be applied. In addition, as our regulations often set standards for a wide range of complex aviation operations they may need to be detailed and comprehensive. In short, it is not always easy or even possible to create ‘simple’ regulations. But having said that, it is CASA’s job to strive towards the goal of clarity, coherence and precision using plain and easy to understand language.
In reviewing the development and implementation of the licensing suite I can see a number of improvements we can make in our processes. The first is to do more work up front before the regulations are made. This may involve testing the regulatory proposals in a practical way with the aviation community or running a pilot program to ensure implementation plans are optimal. At all stages we need a better dialogue with the aviation community to allow us to communicate, consult meaningfully and to listen carefully to all constructive feedback. Most importantly, CASA needs to put more effort into educating and training our own people about the new regulations and their implementation so we can give clear and consistent advice to the aviation community.
I recently wrote to all pilots and flying training organisations asking for further feedback on the licensing suite and I am pleased to say the response has been very helpful. At the time of writing more than 60 people and organisations have replied to my letter and I thank everyone for taking the time to respond. A wide range of comments and suggestions have been received, and all of these are being carefully reviewed and assessed.
While CASA will not be able to adopt every suggestion, we will act where feedback identifies issues or problems that should be addressed in the interest of getting optimal outcomes from the new regulations.
Please keep your comments coming.
You can read my letter in full at update on new flight crew licensing regulations.
Safe flying - Mark Skidmore AM.
_________________________________________
Australian Flying Magazine quick to respond.
Editor Steve Hitchen wrote in his e-news, ‘The Last Minute Hitch’ dated 29 May ’25 as follows:
“It seems to me that CASA is telling us gently that we can forget one of the Forsyth recommendations: plain-English regulations. In his CASA Briefing Newsletter for May, Mark Skidmore points out that they would like to get complexity out of the CASRs, but the government drafting style is getting in the way. I have no doubt he's right."
"The legislative drafting style is unwieldy, legalese gobbledygook designed to be interpreted by only legal minds, not the general public to which they apply. The incongruity is that the style actually impedes aviation safety rather than promote it because the average person has no idea what many regulations actually say."
"In 2010, US president Barack Obama signed an act that forced US regulations to be written in plain English. It's way overdue that we had something similar happen here, even if it's only for aviation safety regulations."
AHIA - Secretary
-
Evil Twin
- 3rd Dan
- Posts: 696
- Joined: Mar 2007
Re: AHIA: Flight crew training
AHIA wrote:At last! CASA DAS states in his May newsletter industry has a valid complaint about Part 61
The CASA Briefing – e-newsletter – 29 May 2015.
From the Director of Aviation Safety, Mark Skidmore.
I have been looking carefully at issues surrounding the development and implementation of new regulations to make sure CASA is learning lessons from the past. This has been my focus as we progress with the implementation of the new licensing suite of regulations that was introduced in September 2014. I fully accept CASA can make improvements in both the way regulations are developed and implemented.
We do start with the intention to make new regulations as clear as possible, using plain language without unnecessary complexities. We most certainly do not set out to write regulatory requirements that are hard to understand. But like many good intentions our goal can get lost during the journey and, for a range of reasons, the result can sometimes be regulations that are more complex than desired.
As the aviation regulations form part of Commonwealth legislation the legal framework and style governing all Commonwealth legislation must be applied. In addition, as our regulations often set standards for a wide range of complex aviation operations they may need to be detailed and comprehensive. In short, it is not always easy or even possible to create ‘simple’ regulations. But having said that, it is CASA’s job to strive towards the goal of clarity, coherence and precision using plain and easy to understand language.
In reviewing the development and implementation of the licensing suite I can see a number of improvements we can make in our processes. The first is to do more work up front before the regulations are made. This may involve testing the regulatory proposals in a practical way with the aviation community or running a pilot program to ensure implementation plans are optimal. At all stages we need a better dialogue with the aviation community to allow us to communicate, consult meaningfully and to listen carefully to all constructive feedback. Most importantly, CASA needs to put more effort into educating and training our own people about the new regulations and their implementation so we can give clear and consistent advice to the aviation community.
I recently wrote to all pilots and flying training organisations asking for further feedback on the licensing suite and I am pleased to say the response has been very helpful. At the time of writing more than 60 people and organisations have replied to my letter and I thank everyone for taking the time to respond. A wide range of comments and suggestions have been received, and all of these are being carefully reviewed and assessed.
While CASA will not be able to adopt every suggestion, we will act where feedback identifies issues or problems that should be addressed in the interest of getting optimal outcomes from the new regulations.
What complete tosh. The NZ system is not written full of legalese rubbish, it's is also much simler and therefore easier to both implement and comply with. In short there are only 3 layers The Act, the rules and the AC's (advisory circulars) describing how to comply with the rules. I've not flown in other countries outside of NZ and Australia but nobody in their right mind could possibly imagine that the CASA suite of rules and regulations is anything other than a horse's @rse. Mr Skidmore in his statement merely lays out his reasons for changing little.
-
froginasock
- 1st Dan
- Posts: 202
- Joined: Aug 2008
Re: AHIA: Flight crew training
Development and Application of Risk- Based and Cost- Effective Aviation Safety Regulations
http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/m ... 1-2015.pdf
... Pity you can't backdate and close the gate .. I think for the ab-initio helicopter training world the horse has bolted to FAA training in the US and a licence conversion back in Australia for up to $30,000 saving when the system fully transfers.
... and I also remember Part 61 coming in a nil cost to operators - I hope they don't use the same cost-benefit modelling!
http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/m ... 1-2015.pdf
... Pity you can't backdate and close the gate .. I think for the ab-initio helicopter training world the horse has bolted to FAA training in the US and a licence conversion back in Australia for up to $30,000 saving when the system fully transfers.
... and I also remember Part 61 coming in a nil cost to operators - I hope they don't use the same cost-benefit modelling!
-
up-into-the-air
- Silver Wings
- Posts: 64
- Joined: Apr 2011
Re: AHIA: Flight crew training
Well done AHIA, but there needs to be the simpler Part 61 from the FAA or the NZ Regs put in place, not exemptions and just another re-write.
Dick Smith made some major concessions for the big-iron, but much more should be taken from this with Alan Jones taking up the cudgells on Friday 5th June 2015. More to come I would expect.
The Dick Smith story is summarised on: http://vocasupport.com/dick-smith-has-a-win-against-casa-with-commonsense/
Dick Smith made some major concessions for the big-iron, but much more should be taken from this with Alan Jones taking up the cudgells on Friday 5th June 2015. More to come I would expect.
The Dick Smith story is summarised on: http://vocasupport.com/dick-smith-has-a-win-against-casa-with-commonsense/
-
CYHeli
- 4th Dan
- Posts: 1825
- Joined: Jun 2006
Re: AHIA: Flight crew training
And this reports proposed changes being considered in the UK.
Very interesting reading.
http://ukga.com/news/view?contentId=35658
The best bits are these;
Very interesting reading.
http://ukga.com/news/view?contentId=35658
The best bits are these;
Today’s announcements are in line with the CAA’s new top level principles for GA regulation:
Only regulate directly when necessary and do so proportionately
Deregulate where we can
Delegate where appropriate
Do not gold-plate, and quickly and efficiently remove gold-plating that already exists
Help create a vibrant and dynamic GA sector in the UK.
More detail on the CAA’s GA activities and the work of the GA Unit are available at www.caa.co.uk/ga
What you leave behind is not what is engraved in stone monuments, but what is woven into the lives of others.
-
AHIA
- 2nd Dan
- Posts: 470
- Joined: Feb 2012
Re: AHIA: Flight crew training
AHIA and CASA form partnership to streamline regulatory changes
MESSAGE FROM AHIA PRESIDENT
By a co-operative partnership with CASA, the AHIA and other industry members, CASA is moving forward with legislative changes to streamline regulatory provisions as a result of the post-implementation review of part 61.
AHIA President Peter Crook see this as a positive step closer to the industry contributing at a high level to legislative content for the betterment of the Aviation industry.
Communication between CASA and the AHIA representatives has improved considerably following a landmark meeting held in Sydney on Wednesday 6 May 2015 attended by the DAS Mark Skidmore and his senior Flight Standards and Flight Crew Licensing Management Team, AHIA President Peter Crook and AHIA Lead Part 61 Review Team member, Ray Cronin.
With other significant amendments in the pipe line these actions demonstrate industry input is now being taken seriously and it adds faith to those who want to contribute but may feel held back by the frustrations of the previous environment.
Positive gains have been made in the following areas:
Low level recency and flight review requirements extended to 24 months.
Sling, Winch and Rappel endorsement certifications and flight review requirements.
Expansion of the 61.040 approvals for flight testing and flight reviews to include a broader spectrum of approved persons and instructor qualifications to place specialist operational assessments within the upper level experience for each activity.
Student pilot recency requirements have been relaxed from 15 days to 30.
Other issues receiving high priority are:
A pathway to allow an Australian ATPL(H) to be obtained.
Amendments to the Part 61 MoS.
The transition requirements for the issue of a firefighting endorsement for those who have previously been active in those operations.
The development of a multi-engine class rating for helicopters.
The input to the development of CASR Part 138 – Draft document now available for scrutiny via the joint CASA/Industry Part 138 working group
Of importance is the appointment of Ray Cronin, AHIA Leader of Part 61 Review Team, to the Joint CASA/Industry SCC Flight Crew Licensing Sub-committee and Peter Crook, AHIA President, to the Aviation Industry Consultative Council.
Peter Crook
E: president@austhia.com
Mob: 0407 638 811
http://www.austhia.com
MESSAGE FROM AHIA PRESIDENT
By a co-operative partnership with CASA, the AHIA and other industry members, CASA is moving forward with legislative changes to streamline regulatory provisions as a result of the post-implementation review of part 61.
AHIA President Peter Crook see this as a positive step closer to the industry contributing at a high level to legislative content for the betterment of the Aviation industry.
Communication between CASA and the AHIA representatives has improved considerably following a landmark meeting held in Sydney on Wednesday 6 May 2015 attended by the DAS Mark Skidmore and his senior Flight Standards and Flight Crew Licensing Management Team, AHIA President Peter Crook and AHIA Lead Part 61 Review Team member, Ray Cronin.
With other significant amendments in the pipe line these actions demonstrate industry input is now being taken seriously and it adds faith to those who want to contribute but may feel held back by the frustrations of the previous environment.
Positive gains have been made in the following areas:
Low level recency and flight review requirements extended to 24 months.
Sling, Winch and Rappel endorsement certifications and flight review requirements.
Expansion of the 61.040 approvals for flight testing and flight reviews to include a broader spectrum of approved persons and instructor qualifications to place specialist operational assessments within the upper level experience for each activity.
Student pilot recency requirements have been relaxed from 15 days to 30.
Other issues receiving high priority are:
A pathway to allow an Australian ATPL(H) to be obtained.
Amendments to the Part 61 MoS.
The transition requirements for the issue of a firefighting endorsement for those who have previously been active in those operations.
The development of a multi-engine class rating for helicopters.
The input to the development of CASR Part 138 – Draft document now available for scrutiny via the joint CASA/Industry Part 138 working group
Of importance is the appointment of Ray Cronin, AHIA Leader of Part 61 Review Team, to the Joint CASA/Industry SCC Flight Crew Licensing Sub-committee and Peter Crook, AHIA President, to the Aviation Industry Consultative Council.
Peter Crook
E: president@austhia.com
Mob: 0407 638 811
http://www.austhia.com
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 27 guests
