Angel Flight and Experimental Aircraft

[yepppp]

Angel Flight have just stopped using experimental category aircraft as part of their operation, siting "On advise from their independent advisors" no other information is given.

The last incident that I know of with an angel flight was with an IFR Twin Comanche that had a wheels up, to my knowledge no incidents with experimental category aircraft.

Does anyone have any info on why angel flight may be taking this particular step with experimental category aircraft?

[Old Akro]

I have no inside knowledge, but I can imagine they are under a fair bit of scrutiny. The ATSB report of the fatality near Hosham must be very, very close to being released.

Your aircraft might be very good but the truth is that are not required to meet certification standards as high as those for production aircraft and the press would have a field day if there was an accident with one. The AC on the experimental category alone represents rich pickings for quotes.

Experimental amateur built aircraft include an aircraft that is fabricated and assembled by a person for their own education or recreation.

Frankly, I'm surprised that they ever allowed it.

[Stalker_]

I have done a fair few angel flights in my time, to be fair nobody is really looking in to how the aircrafts are maintained or indeed the pilots general experience, I think it is time they regulated whom and what can fly there pax to the hospitals etc

[Old Akro]

Stalker, I think you are a bit out of date. Copies of all licences are required and every flight requires a declaration by the pilot that everything is correct. They tightened things up about 2 years ago and are pretty much world's best practice for Angel Flight operations.

[yepppp]

The Pilot qualifications flying my experimental and conducting Angel Flights surely cannot be questioned, please pipe up if you see something wrong with current airline pilots ie current Instrument rating, Aircraft rating, Class 1 medical, including a normal BFR on type ie the experimental as per insurance company requirements, having flown before they started driving cars, and having flown everything from the Tiger Moth to Boeing 747-400, average total time approx 15,000hrs

[josephfeatherweight]

I had a look at Angel Flight about 12 months ago, with a view to ultimately helping out in a flying capacity. Unfortunately my random availability meant I was, rightly, unsuitable. Whilst I applaud the thrust behind the organisation and the terrific work done by those who serve it in many different capacities, I was more than a tad concerned by the low experience minimums required. I'm sure there are some skilled and safe 250 PIC time pilots out there, but that minimum seems low for this task. It's a difficult problem, they need pilots to help and perhaps those with more desirable experience do not have the time nor means to lend a hand. All the best to them, a very noble cause - hope it can all be done safely.

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

The Pilot qualifications flying my experimental and conducting Angel Flights surely cannot be questioned, please pipe up if you see something wrong with current airline pilots ie current Instrument rating, Aircraft rating, Class 1 medical, including a normal BFR on type ie the experimental as per insurance company requirements, having flown before they started driving cars, and having flown everything from the Tiger Moth to Boeing 747-400, average total time approx 15,000hrs

......and your point is?

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

I have found Angel Flight to be 'on the ball' with regard to the various 'paper-work' requirements..... e'g'. BFR's, Medicals etc.
And I have always responded accordingly.

Why do you not simply send them an email and ask, or give them a ring..??

Cheers:ok:

[VH-XXX]

A commercial IFR charter pilot could be flying you around with 200hrs PIC.... 250 is fair. No different taking a sick passenger versus a dozen tourists in a Caravan. Hours are not a good measure.

I'm not sure I would necessarily want my cancer stricken relative flying in someone's home built KR2 for example, which technically they were permitting. Banning experimental isn't necessarily a great idea either as a measure of airworthiness. A difficult situation to manage however they are starting with the obvious, or at least when something had gone wrong with an experimental home built, the Nancy's would have been screaming about it.

[le Pingouin]

yepppp, look at it from the outside. To the uninformed eye what sort of image is conveyed by using an aircraft labelled "experimental" for an organisation providing a service to medically vulnerable people? Not a great one, particularly if something goes wrong.

[Jabawocky]

yeppppp

You might not be suprised at just how many Command Instrument Rated pilots there are with IFR experimental planes doing Angel flights, many are current B767/A330 Captains, and none of the machines I am familiar with are sloppy at all.

In fact they are far more airworthy than the certified clapped out old dungers that would otherwise be deemed acceptable, but are not up to my standard for an IFR flight.

When this came out last week I had no less than 4 emails within an hour, and I reckon AF had that or more.

Join the clan :ok:

As for the accident, the fatal one, it was a certified VFR Cherokee, and was in my opinion flown into bad and then worse weather.....and darkness. I can think of one Lancair, and several RV's that I would rather my family were flown in.

Yepppp, I think you would be one of them. I reckon I know who you are even with a couple of posts. :}

Anyway I have been too busy of late. And Thursday will be 7 sectors and 1000NM of flying for me, so it is not like I need to do more. :cool:

[Jabawocky]

No.

Just unknown.

Check ya PM's

[le Pingouin]

As Jaba says experimental equals "who knows what" in aviation terms. In PR terms it equals barge pole material.

Would you prefer "uncertified" :E

[LeadSled]

Folks,
Old Akro had it right, Angel Flight type flights are NOT a permitted use for any "Experimental" cat. aircraft, and as for Experiment Amateur Built, the legislation is really quite unambiguous.
Tootle pip!!

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

A commercial IFR charter pilot could be flying you around with 200hrs PIC.... 250 is fair. No different taking a sick passenger versus a dozen tourists in a Caravan. Hours are not a good measure.

Anyone know of any operator that will stick a fresh CPL into a pax carrying IFR (read as a twin engine) aircraft? Think that's a bit OTT, but hey, you can still legally fly an ILS up to twenty three and a bit months after your last AFR for your PIFR renewal because it doesn't matter as much if you only kill people in a PVT op.:ok::ugh:

[Jack Ranga]

That's a real pity! An experimental airplane will be joining the registry real soon, a quick one! I was looking forward to doing as much as I could.

And my aircraft is better built than any certified 'equivalent' it has more modern & TSO'd nav equipment than the vast majority of light aircraft on the certified registry. It has triple redundancy. If even one rivet was not within tolerance it was removed and re-done.

It even has TSO'd ADSB ;)

Pity

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Ah.....So we'll be able to follow you on Plane Finder then...??

:cool:

[Old Akro]

And my aircraft is better built than any certified 'equivalent'

The problem is that a) that is yours - what about the others and how do you tell the difference and b) the design is not required to meet certification standards.

But overall, if there is an incident with an experimental aircraft, its just a bad look that would be very hard to defend. If it is owner maintained there is a whole new realm of drama. If you read the CASA AC on the experimental category and look at the intent behind the category, the press would have a large amount of ammunition to attack Angel Flight.

For certified aircraft, all roads lead back to CASA. If its a pilot problem then it goes back to the CASA licencing, currency and flight review system. If its an airworthiness / maintenance issue it goes back to CASA, if it is an aircraft design issue it goes back to CASA.

Experimental is supposed to be a mechanism to build an aeroplane for skill development / recreation then fly it with friends and family who understand its history and can make an informed decision about flying in it. An Angel Flight passenger who has an allocated aircraft arrive to transport them does not have the same opportunity to make an informed decision about flying in the aircraft.

[Jack Ranga]

I hear what you're saying old mate, and I actually agree with you :} I wouldn't let any of my family in an experimental aircraft unless I knew the plane and pilot.

Matter of fact I don't get in the back of any light aircraft unless I know the pilot very well whether it's experimental or certified!

[Jack Ranga]

And yes you will Griffo :}

[VH-XXX]

I don't get in the back of any light aircraft unless I know the pilot very well

Didn't I see you on a QF flight a few months back Jack :cool:

It seems we all agree it's a bad look for Angel Flight, but we believe that it's a slap in the face for competent experimental operators. We'd be flogging a dead horse to suggest a reversal of that decision.

An experimental airplane will be joining the registry real soon, a quick one!

I wonder if FTDK agrees with you... :cool:

[Flying Binghi]

Ah.....So we'll be able to follow you on Plane Finder then...??


Heh, the local villains are gunna love knowing the whereabouts.
So no ones home tonight... nice TV set yer had there...;) ...:p












.

[Jack Ranga]

It will be faster & also the ER model :ok:

[Jabawocky]

The best speed mod you can fit to an aeroplane......more fuel. :ok:

[Old Akro]

We all know that in practice something like a Lancair IV, built to the highest professional standard and flown by a professional pilot is probably a whole lot safer than some clapped out 40 year old VFR only Cessna, Piper or Beechraft

Yes, but I know of at least one Lancair that I wouldn't get in to taxy, let alone fly. And therein lies the problem. No matter how old a production aeroplane is a known quantity, but a homebuilt aeroplane is a lottery.

And exactly how to you intend to inform a single mother with a 1 year old with cancer in a way that she will understand and absorb in order to make an informed decision?

[VH-XXX]

Informing them wouldn't be logistically easy either. She's just rocked up at the airport with her child ready for a 3 hour flight for the treatment scheduled in 4 hours and you let her know that you built the aircraft at home over 8 years in your single garage... It's not a good look. As much as I love my experimental aircraft, I wouldn't offer it for this purpose even though I know others have previously without issue.

[Creampuff]

In any case, what's wrong with leaving the decision to the passenger? They should be informed about what EXPERIMENTAL actually means, aircraft capability, pilot experience and qualfictions etc and make their own decision accordingly. I've met several Angelflight clients who would understand the implications, would have no qualms and would welcome getting to their destination in half the time of (say) a C172.The decision will never be an informed one.

Unless the passenger is an aeronautical engineer, structural engineer, mechanical engineer, electrical engineer and insurance actuary who’s reviewed the design, witnessed the construction and been given all the fatigue and operational data for the aircraft, the passenger never ‘understands’ the risks.

When a passenger gets into a certified aircraft with a licensed pilot, the average passenger at least knows that his or her risk of death – whatever it happens to be – depends in substantial part on standards imposed and enforced by a government regulator.

When the average passenger gets into an Experimental aircraft, she has no clue what the risks are.

(For my part, I’d rather get into a contemporarily-designed, competently-constructed ‘Experimental’ aircraft any day.)

[Jabawocky]

Agreed Creamie,

For those in either camp, refer post 11 and my post No.12 and creamies post above.

It makes no rational sense when you know who and what.....but you can understand why the opinion was formed.

It is a valid opinion but not based on data.

Such is life.....if anyone was going to be bent out of shape it could be me and a bunch of Airline Captains I know with world class machines, but despite shaking our heads, what can you do.

Science & Data is no defence to the warm fuzzy feeling of a deeply held superstition/belief/OWT.

Case closed.

[HarleyD]

The entire point of compliance with certification standards is to attempt to ensure that an aircraft is a known quantity. It must behave in a conventional way and not have any charactersistics that will have catastrophic consequences, even if they are abused. They must be able to be operated by' normal' pilots without the requirement for excessive force or exceptional piloting skills. They must meet defined structural standards and meet fatigue assesments. They must have any critical components identified and have sheduled replacement of such components to ensure the life of these components is not exceeded. They incorporate redundancy of systems and components. They meet ground vibration testing frequency and vibtaion mode analysis. They must meet flight test of aeroelasticity, at 110% of Vne with frequency generators inducing critical vibration modes. They must be able go recover from a spin at aft CofG, at full power at max alt, with full flap at MTOW in the critical direction, with ailerons opposing, with differential ful load, with control deflections at critical dimensions, with control cables at critical tensions, in one turn without excessive height loss. They meet dynamic crashworthiness standards for seats, restraints and head impact criteria.

This is for recent certification of course, old and antique aircraft like most cessnas, pipers etc, are not designed to these standards. They are desinged to meet old, very basic standards, but commercial standards none the less. The bonanza isnt even FAR 23, it predates this early 1960's standard. It has a certification standard over 50 years old, but is a well known quantity of known characteristics, even if some are no longer acceptable to current standards.

So, there are certificated aircraft which are intended to meet rigidly defined standards, however old, and then there are experimental, which meet only basic standards.

Do not confuse investement in construction time, close attention to finish and nice new nuts and bolts with 'airworthiness'. A lancair v is not and aircraft for a 'normal pilot' and definately not for a quasi commercial operation. They do not go within miles of meeting any standard of which a care flight customer may possibly be reasonably informed.

If you signed a form for your primary school kids to go on an excursion and someone turned up with a nice shiney home made bus with a huge engine and that met no design regs and had no proper roadworthy certificate, a car drivers licence and good intentions, how would you view that? How can you make an informed decision regarding your child's safety if the sign at the door informed you that you travel at your own risk as it meets no normal ADR's and that is primary intended for educational purposes ( the builder/ driver's, not your kids) Helloooo

On the other hand if he turned up withan old 1960's Ansair bus, even in roadworthy condition and with a flash new paint job, you could reasonably make a judgement that this is basically an old piece of sh!te and the kiddies stay home. ( or you may so OK, the RTA says its probably acceptable, i'll go with it)

I would suggest that the expectation is that a late model bus in good condition operated by a reputable carries an implication of high standards, because it cannot be utilized for the purpose unless it meets these standards. This provides a level of comfort to the passengers, or their parents in this instance. Any school with a duty of care policy and exercising any due dilligence in bus company selection would also opt for this.

Anyone who would put their sick child in a lancair with a private pilot needs their head read, or to be better informed, or to be not given the choice. Likewise if this distinction is to be made, certification standards that are acceptable should be defined, e.g." FAR23 at ammendment 36 or later"

I wonder if there is any restriction regarding ground based transport? A labelled mercedes ambulance, a ford transit patient transport vehicle, or how about an AC cobra kit car with a 427 v8, no roll bar, no abs, no traction control, no airbags, no inertia reel seat belts, driven by a p plater?

HD

[Andy_RR]

One wonders if the patients are making a similarly informed decision regarding the treatment they are Angel-flying to...?

I know, in theory the answer is yes, but...

[Jabawocky]

Well this is my opinion

https://fbcdn-profile-a.akamaihd.net/hprofile-ak-prn1/50556_214360602163_8213241_n.jpg

Harley D, much of what you say is fair enough, some is a little misguided, but thats your view, (refer above), but if your view is to be fully embraced, they need to contract Qantas/Virgin or Cobham. Nothing else is good enough. :ok:

[Jack Ranga]

Triple X, I said 'light aircraft'

And I don't fly Qantas so it can't have been me :ok:

[VH-XXX]

Just yanking your chain.

I'm airborne again, so stand by for a visit to your ranch JR.

[Jack Ranga]

Ranch entry requires a formation endo :}

[VH-XXX]

...The most dangerous thing on an aircraft is a schedule...

[Old Akro]

One wonders if the patients are making a similarly informed decision regarding the treatment they are Angel-flying to...?

They are deemed safe for the purpose by CASA. Pilots are CASA qualified and current with evidence held on hand by Angel flight with higher flight experience requirements than charter operators. Aircraft are certified by CASA and maintained to a CASA approved schedule by CASA approved LAME's

[dubbleyew eight]

old acro you are a bit behind the times mate.

NO ROADS LEAD TO CASA.....none at all.

the piece of teflon you need to read is the damage by aeroplanes act 1999.

do keep up :}

[dubbleyew eight]

Jack Ranga if yours is a Lancair do us all a favour mate.

dont stall it below 7,000ft. ever!

they take about 3,500ft to recover a spin and they enter a spin quite easily off a stall.

at one time lancairs had the worst safety record of all aircraft types in australia.
50% of the lancairs had been spun in with 2 fatalities each crash.

I'm not kidding. never drop your guard on the flying.

airspeed! airspeed! airspeed!

[VH-XXX]

W8, wash your mouth out !

Jack is a fellow Retard Vehicle owner. Hence why I questioned the use of the word "fast" from his earlier post :cool:

[Jabawocky]

And a point of order if you will indulge me. Not all Lancairs are created equal.

The Lancairs that W8 refers are no doubt the slippery little rockets that resemble a RM Williams boot with an IO360 in the front, and it is true that the record of fatal spins was impressive.

Later modes such as the Lancair IV and the Legacy are very different. Still a high performance machine and must be flown that way but not deserving of the reputation many hold of them.

As a point in case the last two accidents both of which have been the later model had absolutely nothing to do with the aircraft. The common point of failure was the Pilot.

Food for thought :cool:

[Frank Arouet]

Safety standards for community service flights.


Civil Aviation Safety Authority - Project OS 13/25 (http://casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:PWA::pc=PC_101859)


Now someone needs to determine what is "in the public interest".

[Jabawocky]

Who says they got the idea from prune Frank?

A clever guess but I think you might be mistaken. This thread came as a result of CASA doing probing into a certified accident and the project is only now catching up.

And like all those projects……don't hold your breath for either results or common sense.

I could be wrong and if it is found to be otherwise I will let you know.

;)

[poonpossum]

Anyone know of any operator that will stick a fresh CPL into a pax carrying IFR (read as a twin engine) aircraft?

There is a pretty big one called Jetstar.

[T28D]

How about China Southern