The Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation's contribution to Forward Air Control

CAC Boomerangs being assembled at Fishermans Bend, VIC: Photo from Wikimedia (public domain)

My interest in transport and communications stems from a childhood fascination with the military. In my twenties, I continued the family tradition of serving in the Australian Army that began with my great-grandfather in 1916 and continues with my son some 100 years later. In this post I revisit my childhood pursuits by writing a brief history of the Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation's (CAC) contribution to forward air control (FAC). CAC was responsible for producing Australia's only indigenous fighter aircraft, the CAC Boomerang, during World War Two.

2629 PTE E.B. Percy, 33rd Bn AIF

If I had done what I was told to do in life, I would have been a brickie's labourer by age 16. Fortunately, I rarely listened to others. After a light-bulb moment in 1989, I decided to pursue my childhood dream of becoming a fighter pilot. For a number of reasons, that did not eventuate, but I became an artillery forward observer and qualified as an air contact officer (ACO) in 1996. Note this role is not as prestigious as the RAAF's Forward Air Controller (FAC) role, but it is certainly the poor man's version of it! In this role (under training conditions), I learnt to call-in fighter ground-attack aircraft (F/A-18A) and bombers (F-111) from ground-based observation posts, helicopters, and sometimes from the back seat of a Pilatus PC-9. It remains one of the most exhilarating experiences I have had to date.

But the Swiss PC-9 heralded the end of the local military aircraft industry. Had I been an ACO two years earlier, I might have experienced my role in the CAC Winjeel. But the beginnings of FAC date back to 1943, when the RAAF's CAC Wirraway is credited with the first recorded instance of a forward air control mission during World War Two in New Guinea. Later FAC missions would be flown by the faster CAC Boomerangs.

Despite the end of the local military aircraft industry, the RAAF continued its tradition of forward air control with the establishment of the Forward Air Control Development Unit (FACDU) in 2009 and more recently with No. 4 Squadron RAAF, a specialist squadron focused on FAC and related roles. Yet the connection between this important military role and the Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation is largely understated.

ACO training in a PC-9 in 1996

The Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation Pty Ltd was founded in 1936 at the suggestion of Essington Lewis (1881-1961), an Australian industrialist, by a syndicate that included BHP, Broken Hill Associated Smelters and later General Motors Holden. The Victorian Government provided 140 acres for an aircraft factory and landing strip at Fishermans Bend, Victoria.  

Sir Lawrence Wackett (1896–1982), a veteran of the Australian Flying Corps and one of the first officers appointed to the Royal Australian Air Force, was selected to manage the company. Wackett is regarded as "the father of the Australian aircraft industry" and was recently inducted into the Queensland Business Leaders Hall of Fame.

Despite objections by the British, Wackett selected the North American NA-33 to be made under licence by CAC as the Wirraway (an Aboriginal word meaning "challenge"). The first Wirraways were transferred to the RAAF in 1939. The Wirraway proved to be a favourite with the artillery in New Guinea:

[The Wirraways] spotted shell bursts, lured enemy AA into disclosing their positions, reported [Japanese soldiers] trying to escape; they were forced down and occasionally crashed in flames; one daring Wirraway pilot shot down a Zero. Their work, according to the official artillery report was "superb" (Post, 2007).

The FAC tradition would continue with the CAC Boomerang and CAC Winjeel. Later CAC aircraft included locally manufactured Mustangs, the CAC Wackett, the CAC Avon Sabre, and prototypes of the CAC Woomera and CAC Kangaroo (these prototypes never went into production).

The Boomerang remains the only Australian designed and built fighter aircraft but there is little doubt that the Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation made an important contribution to the development of forward air control as practised by the RAAF. It is fitting that the RAAF's No. 4 Squadron continues to provide FAC today. After all, it was No. 4 Squadron that pioneered the FAC technique in a CAC Wirraway in New Guinea in 1943.

References

Post, C. (2007). The birth of Forward Air Control: A Royal Australian Air Force innovation. Australian Defence Force Journal, No. 172: 103-109.

ACT Government leads the way on ride-sharing reform

© Depositphotos.com/@Wavebreakmedi

The ACT leads the way in enabling the sharing economy while reducing the operating costs for taxi operators. Taxis will retain their exclusive rights to operate from taxi ranks and to be hailed from the street, whereas ride-sharing operators will operate in a similar manner to hire cars.

Speaking on ABC 666 AM this morning, Chief Minister Andrew Barr outlined the first phase of deregulating the taxi industry while introducing measures to regulate ride-sharing. Some of the changes include significant reductions in government fees for taxi operators while adding new fees and requirements, such as vehicle inspections, for ride-sharing operators.

Uber General Manager David Rohrsheim welcomed the changes. Uber have been calling for ride-sharing to be regulated appropriately for some time although their tactics have been rather aggressive.

A spokesman for the ACT taxi industry also welcomed the level playing field but is concerned that insurance requirements should also be similar.

How the ACT Government's rule that drivers who work exclusively for one ride-sharing provider will be deemed to be employees will intersect with the ATO's requirement that Uber drivers register for and collect the GST remains to be seen. But the move by the ACT goes some way to address some of my earlier concerns with ride-sharing.

One seemingly minor change that will be most noticeable, however, is that taxi drivers will no longer be required to wear uniforms. But once the symbols of regulation fall away, the tenuous status of taxi drivers will certainly be reduced. Whether the decrease in taxi operating costs will reduce taxi fares remains to be seen.

But the ACT Government is to be applauded for phasing in transport reform ahead of Uber's ride sharing service being offered in Canberra. The ACT is the first jurisdiction to address the challenges being brought about by ride sharing.

Uber Regulatory Test Case: Who is in charge?

© Depositphotos.com/@Zerbor

While many consumers are celebrating the rise of Uber, those who have invested in the taxi industry are rightly upset by Mr Turnbull's support for the multinational's "disruptive" business model. It is timely that a national test case is being heard in the courts to see whether this is a truly "disruptive" business model or otherwise an illegal thwarting of existing regulations.

I have argued previously that Uber's business model does not take into account numerous externalities, in particular, those that relate to the pay and conditions for its own drivers. Of course, consumers appear not to care about what it costs to pay an Uber driver, as long as it means cheaper fares for consumers. At least while the cheaper fares last.

But taxis are one of the few remaining regulated monopolies in the country, and taxi drivers share none of the regulatory advantages that Uber is cashing in on. Indeed, ACT Liberals Opposition Leader Jeremy Hanson recently spoke on 666 ABC Canberra and faced an uphill battle to convince the host that Uber were doing anything other than providing a cheaper, better service.

In my travels, I have heard others suggest that Uber's system works better than government regulation. One simply gives a driver a low rating, states they were taken the "long way", and then the company sympathises and offers a refund. That may be well and good, but while an existing regulatory monopoly is under threat, governments have done little to deregulate taxis or to make the market truly competitive.

And herein lies the real problem. Operating a taxi is expensive. Not because it necessarily is expensive, but because the regulatory model makes it so. Uber seems to be changing transport policy through sheer economic power rather than through government adopting a coordinated approach to dealing with the so-called "digital disruption".

If any new start-up can run rough-shod over existing regulations, then government needs to get ahead of the game. So far, however, government has buckled to pressure to the point where they are more or less congratulating Uber for upsetting a regularity model that government itself created.

The national test case means that government policy has yet again been left to the courts. Thankfully, the courts seem to take their unelected role more seriously than our elected representatives. Uber appears to be in a good position, but the current two-tiered regulatory model is more a result of poor policy than the case of Uber's smart business model.

Any business model that makes prices for consumers cheaper while paying workers less is hardly a recipe for success. Yet taxi operaters who comply with the law are currently being punished for doing so. That doesn't mean that Uber have it all wrong, but is does not auger well for other heavily regulated sectors of society when a foreign company enters the market and starts telling Australian governments how to regulate. 

Taxi operators are quite rightly upset. They played by the rules but the rules have been changed based on the pushiness of a multinational. Sure, transport reform is timely, but government waiting until a cheeky competitor like Uber comes along with plenty of money to get its own way is yet another example of sovereign risk that does not bode well for the future. 

Why bother to innovate while foreign companies like Uber appear to be running the whole show. Government needs to get its act together.