CASA now wants to control community flights what next

[dhavillandpilot]

Just received an email from Angel Flight.

It appears CASA is concerned about the "safety" aspect of this and other community free service flights.

The discussion paper link is below

Civil Aviation Safety Authority - DP 1317OS (http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_102133)

[Jack Ranga]

I guess when people are killed using these services they'd at least want to have a look at it?

[Horatio Leafblower]

I'm with Jack... as usual.

There have been several people killed on Angel flights (Rambo flights?) in Australia by pilots stretching themselves beyond their ability. One was in pissing rain in the dark in the Victorian Mallee if I remember rightly.

I have watched pilots from the Civil Air Patrol engaging in similar gung-ho behaviour, and as a young bloke in the Volunteer ambos I was pretty gung-ho too.

It is an unfortunate part of human nature and CASA are in a position to at least put some controls in place... which is good because it seems Angel Flight, and several Angel Flight pilots have been unable to put the brakes on themselves.

:rolleyes:

[Adsie]

clearedtoreenter

I agree with you with the risk factor that is involved with private flight [ or for that matter any flight ] but I think that the pilots of these flights seem "self" pressured to get to the destination " to help the kids"

I have certainly looked at doing these flights to keep my hand in as I am an unemployed pilot at the moment but I would rather that a sick child miss a doctor appointment than never make it at all.

These flights are done by very generous people who donate a lot of time and or money to help people who really need it but the flights in single aircraft may be pushing the boundaries of pilot / aircraft.

I cannot remember when one of these flights have came to grief in a twin.

But to fly a twin the cost is obviously higher so your back to the very generous people who own singles doing the absolute best they can.

I take my hat off to them - there may have been a few incidents but for the number of flights these wonderful people do, I think they are doing a wonderful job.

[thorn bird]

Na cleared to, sorry mate..
Your not safe unless you have an aattppl licence, an aamecll instrument rating..bachelor of air safety from the kentucky fried chicken university of Mumbai, 50,000 hours experience on at least 10 engine aircraft engaged in regular public transport... plus the usual ratings...
Without these !! sorry mate your NOT SAFE...better these pathetic people who cant afford proper insurance are left to their own devises...its called population control....


JeeZZ sometimes you pompous ass..holes really should take a look at yourselves!!! This is not for hire and reward its for CHARITY!!!
We were all Private pilots once!!

[BlatantLiar]

Agree with the level of get-there-itis involved raised by Adsie however the amount of engines is not the issue. Its the flight rules.

Heres an idea, just so nobody can have a teary. Make them sign a waiver like limited category adventure flights. Should read something like this: "Your pilot has been deemed safe by us(CAsA) to operate an aircraft and carry passengers(We issued him with a license), however, there is a chance we stuffed up. Your pilot may actually be a complete dufus, moron and imbecile. He may kill you. If this occurs we take no responsibility for issuing them with a license. YOU FLY WITH THIS PERSON AT YOUR OWN RISK.

[Adsie]

BlatantLiar

Very true on number of engines, but I think some pilots may push limits / aircraft to achieve the flight

[Wally Mk2]

If the regulators want it made safer then change the flights rules & perhaps whom can do these & in what type of machine.

The risks will always be there, the willingness will always be there & sadly the customers will always be there, to juggle that lot into a manageable level is the challenge.
I reckon it's a great organization but perhaps it's a little 'lose' & simply needs tightening up.


Wmk2

[Square Bear]

I agree that the guys do a great service to the community, but I don't think you can compare taking "mum" for a jolly to the wider public having access to a booking system for an aviation service.

And that is not to say that the concept shouldn't exist, it definately should, but a little regulatory oversight of the operation certainly wouldn't go astray, and could very well assist it.....and that has nothing to do with either being pompous, or suggesting that Private Pilots shouldn't do the flying.

[le Pingouin]

CtoR, how does Mrs Jones and little Johnny flying in from the sticks by a pilot they've never met and know nothing about, in an aircraft they know nothing about assess the risk of such a venture? They can't.

It's not just the pilots who might feel self pressure to "get the job done". The people who utilise these flights are also under pressure to accept whatever they're offered - they want to get to that medical appointment and the service is provided for free so who wants to appear churlish by refusing?

How does anyone who is not a pilot or at least has a passing familiarity with aviation really assess the risk?

Angel Flight is providing a service (and good on 'em for doing it) and the passengers deserve to know the standard of service they're receiving.

[Jack Ranga]

Awesomely put :ok:

[dhavillandpilot]

Having read the discussion paper twice, some of the issues raised on the surface seem reasonable. (No I'm not cheering CASA on)

As someone with lots of hours and about to do Angel Flights in a twin the DP would not affect me too much.

I guess the scenario of a low time private pilot or RAAS pilot doing a CFIT is the one CASA is aiming at for crewing. And the self maintained RAAS aircraft is the equipment issue.

If you take the time and actually look at the Pilot profiles on Angel Flight website the one thing that stands out is that most, like me, have grey hair and have been flying for a considerable number of years. Then you look at the aircraft offered and suddenly you get a feeling that they are well maintained VH registered GA aircraft.


Also if you are enrolled in Angel Flight you will get emails that show that a flight will have been arranged and then suddenly is offered again. This happened today, my guess is that the original pilot was VFR and the weather now looks like being IFR. If that is the case then good sense has prevailed.

If changes have to be made then it needs good common sense, from the industry, NOT FROM THE HEAVY HANDED CASA EMPLOYEES TRYING TO EXPAND THEIR LITTLE EMPIRES?

[Dick Smith]

I notice no reference in the CASA document as to what happens in other leading aviation countries.

This is consistent with the Canberra scene where learning from the success of others is not in their realm of thinkig.

Does anyone know how this is handled in the USA , Canada and Europe?

[ozbiggles]

Which success would that be?
The one where despite the best intentions people got killed?
You are right, nothing for CASA to see here move on...

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Guys / Gals,
I have done, and will still do, I hope, 'Angel Flights', because I reckon that 'its a nice thing to do'.

I fly 'Angel Flights' in a well maintained 'VH' registered aircraft.
I have cancelled / delayed a few flights because the weather / fog / cloud was not VFR. And I am a VFR oldie pilot.....

The passengers always have a 'Plan B'.

I insist on it - and I am reliably informed by Angel Flight that it is in their brief to the intending pax as well.

There is no 'pressure' to get the job done - period!

In my mind - its a totally private operation, operated by suitably qualified and experienced pilots who simply want to 'put something back' and do so - with the above qualifications / limitations....

IF the CASA see 'fit to make this service 'the equivalent of an RPT flight' then it will achieve exactly NOTHING - EXCEPT to kill the service and the initiative - and affect those who need the service most - THOSE 'IN NEED' of a bit of assistance in their medical misfortune.

A glance at the Angel Flight list of volunteer pilots show mostly very experienced, often retired, pilots who 'know when to hold them and when to fold them'.....

Leave it alone!!

No cheers:(

[Ultralights]

in an aircraft they know nothing about assess the risk of such a venture? They can't.

Technically, they should, if the aircraft is registered, and flying with a valid maintenance release, then there should be no question of the aircrafts airworthiness. its the reason we pay, and CASA licence LAMES, to ensure aircraft are safe. even amateur built, as they have all been inspected, and deemed safe by a LAME or someone approved by CASA, to ensure the aircraft are safe.

Considering the age of the aircraft fleet in Oz, the system seams to work well.. not to many falling out of the sky regularly due to maintenance deficiencies.

as for Pilot abilities, well, the same, or similar system exists, with ATO's etc, but sadly, the training levels vary considerably, and considering the level of accidents caused by pilot error, or more specifically, poor Human factors, such as succumbing to get there itis, or pushing on into weather beyond their skill levels. something is failing in the training regime. are the ATO's of Australia accepting lower levels of pilot skills in passing candidates?

i think these issues should be sorted before burdening community benefiting ops with more red tape... stop the problem at it source.

[Old Akro]

I guess when people are killed using these services they'd at least want to have a look at it?

Doesn't seem to work for RA(Aus).

I haven't yet read it, but if it doesn't have a comparison of accident rates of " community flights" vs the other sectors of GA (which I don't think it does), then its just a bureaucratic whitewash and a grab for power.

The only fatality that I'm aware of relating to a "community flight" is the one at Horsham. There were NO recommendations made by the ATSB relating to the requirement for additional discipline or regulations for that type of flight.

There were criticisms of CASA's regulations surrounding NVMC flight - but nothing about the conduct of the sector.

http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/4462266/ao-2011-100_final.pdf

So, if the body empowered to investigate these accidents makes ZERO recommendations about additional regulations, then how is it that CASA can produce a scant document without any numerate analysis of accident rates and argue for increased regulation?

Surely this is just an ham fisted overt grab for power?

[LeadSled]

----- then how is it that CASA can produce a scant document without any numerate analysis of accident rates and argue for increased regulation?Guys and Girls,

You all have a very short memory, cast your minds back to the year of the CASA FLOP (sorry!! FLOT) Conference or thereabouts.

A draft version of a bunch of rules was circulated, with the concept of a "PRIVATE OPERATIONS AOC" ---- which was to apply to all operations previously classified as "private" --- with the narrow exception of a pilot flying his or her "immediate" family for recreational purposes only.

It is very hard to kill a really bad regulatory idea, particularly when it emanated from our dearly beloved CASA.

In a similar there is a DP canvassing the banning of carrying two kids on one seat --- something that was done on the very first Qantas (what became) RFDS flight in central Queensland.

So, in something like 85 years of this practice, we have never had an injury, much less a fatality, but what does that matter to CASA -- they have a theoretical study from the UK about what "might" happen, and it is being pushed by a cabin crew union.

Indeed, the FAA cost/benefit study on the subject, some years ago, canned the prohibition, they calculated there would be more accidents and injuries in auto accidents, where those killed or injured were using their car, because they could no longer afford the cost of flying a young family.

A really bad idea that will not be killed, as it is dear to the heart of somebody in CASA, regardless of the complete lack of justification.There is nothing new about CASA's (and predecessors) ability to think up really harebrained and stupid rules to "regulated" non-problems.

Tootle pip!!

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Agree with you, Leadsled.

Griffo is the target audience of the CASA's parody. What makes a newb CPL a better risk than old not bold Griffo. What does an AOC bring to the table to improve safety above what a PPL does and should do every time they strap on an airplane. Bureaucratic straightjacket!

Looked at this when I was active, had the minimum hours but still felt I was not ready skillwise to be of service. Why would any pilot think any differently?

Think about the Horsham prang...how is it different from a certain high profile black hole accident a few decades ago with a CPL at the wheel...same outcome but very real commercial pressure on the pilot...or....a certain patient transfer commercial operation that ended very tragically with plenty of outs ignored to get back to base...CPL and AOC...anecdotally, I think I'll take me chances with Griffo, thank you very much!

[Squawk7700]

Two things worthy of analysis:

- Percentage wise are you safer paxing with a CPL or PPL ?
- Are you safer on a charter flight in a single or a private flight?

If you could work that out it would be interesting.

On one hand you have commercial pressures for the CPL but PPL's on PVT flights often do things and land in places that a chartered aircraft wouldn't thus introducing risk to the flight. But Angel Flight or similar do pose similar commercial pressures on the pilot.

[Jabawocky]

Squawkie…Long time no see.

The problem with trying to analyse which is statistically better is that the spread of standards means that many highly proficient and safe private operators will be statistically brought down by the cowboys.

you can also say that about the commercial AOC holders too, but the trouble is knowing if the ratio of cowboys has been compared correctly.

Flying like motorcycle riding has some dangers however when you are careful about mitigating risks and removing cowboy antics from the equation, it gets very low risk all of a sudden.

The one fatality was a classic case of stupidity in my mind, and that was pretty evident from the day after it happened.

Ozbusdriver has quite rightly pointed out that a CPL and anAOC are no weapon against the same thing.

[Horatio Leafblower]

...on the weight of the arguments presented I am prepared to stop being a smug git, climb off my high horse and agree with Jaba et al.

The imposition of more rules will be an ineffective brake on such behaviour as would kill an Angel Flight pilot and his pax. If the threat of an imminent, violent and possibly firey death is not enough to dissuade you then I guess nothing will.

The wise counsel of a good Chief Pilot would have prevented many an accident. For the commercial operators there is a time when we must relax the apron strings and let the kids go for themselves... but we hae supervised them closely up to that point.

In reality, the answer to everything in Australia is more bloody rules (don't forget Julia's sole achievement is passing more bloody rules in a given period of time than any other government in history! God help us).

But in a dream world...
...for an operation such as Angel Flight, is it possible to have some sort of mentor/Chief Pilot/Dispatcher/Co-pilot-by-telephone to validate a pilot's decision to depart into anything other than Day VMC?

...could that be workable?

I dunno, I have never done Angel Flights.

More regulation is not the answer. :suspect:

[Old Akro]

...for an operation such as Angel Flight, is it possible to have some sort of mentor/Chief Pilot/Dispatcher/Co-pilot-by-telephone to validate a pilot's decision to depart into anything other than Day VMC?

I think this is a reasonable idea. However, CASA will not allow it. Years ago the aerobatic club used to have a coaching system. It worked really well. It was a mentoring system for guys who already were qualified, but benefited from coaching for competition aerobatics. It also provided a really nice support structure to provide some peer pressure in regard to general flying standards.

Nice idea? CASA prohibited it because the "coaches" were not qualified instructors.

In my experience doing Angel Flights, the AF dispatcher will not help with a decision except that they err on the side of not going if you are vacillating. I have found them to be hugely supportive if you decide not to fly.

Angel flight already have tougher qualification & currency requirements than many parachute or scenic flight ops. There is no evidence of problems with Angel Flight.

On the other hand, the Horsham accident showed flaws with CASA's licencing, the provision of forecasts and raised questions about the provision of air traffic services / flight following.

These are the issues that should get scrutiny - not "community flights".

[C206driver]

Here's a thought:

Potentially, if CAsA 'kill' these organisations, more patients may be killed either through forcing their parents/partners or even themselves to make long, tiring, dangerous trips by car, perhaps through the night to seek medical treatment or by simply not being able to travel as often anymore and going without frequent treatment, than those which may be killed by an "unsafe pilot/aircraft"??

Or maybe that's the idea?

Deaths that aren't affiliated with aviation are someone else's problem??

Safe lies.....oops I meant skies

[Jack Ranga]

Horatio, it's not about being a smug git! It's also not about more regulation. It's about a decent mentoring system & perhaps a more stringent recency & monitoring system.

[Aussie Bob]

It's about a decent mentoring system & perhaps a more stringent recency & monitoring system.

I doubt you will get that without more regulation ...

Safety boots
Safety jacket
Safety gloves
Safety meetings
Safety programs
Safety policies

Regulate this, regulate that, control this control that, all in the name of safety

It all makes me want to puke. About time people took more responsibility for themselves.

[fencehopper]

Having all the top of the class ratings and big twins is not really a sure fire way of getting you there. i remember a air ambo king air and queensland rescue helicopter going in and probably a few more as well.
Common sense and a regular nudge to use it is probably all that's needed.

[Jamair]

queensland rescue helicopter going in more info on this one please? Or are you not referring to what was Qld Rescue, now called EMQ, soon to be something else...

The EMS helicopter crashes in Qld were in fact Private / AWK Ops, in SE aircraft, where the analysis of the events concluded that they were the result of poor organisational structures, real or perceived pressure to undertake the 'missions', and failures to recognise operational limitations.

There are real or perceived pressures to undertake the 'missions', and operational limitations to manage in angel flight tasks, some pilots will manage those issues better than others.

The theory that the angel flight roster is filled with older drivers and is therefore somehow safer does not stack up in my view - the Horsham pilot I believe had been flying for 30 years or something? But at 10 hours a year? (haven't read the report lately, so feel free to correct those numbers).

The whole private / charity / community service thing is a vexed issue that I think warrants examination, but the heavy hand of CASA...... dunno.:confused:

[LeadSled]

C206driver,
You just about have it covered.
Tootle pip!!

[thorn bird]

One thing is fairly certain.

If CAsA try and regulate it, the cost burden will make the whole Angel Flight concept untenable.

CAsA are simply incapable of writing regulations that work. A very cynical old man once told me that was in the bureaucrats handbook. Never write rules that work because then they would not need to employ more people to amend them, or employ more lawyers to interpret them.

Look no further than the rest of the aviation industry, and in particular GA to see the result of unfettered bureaucracy in action.

They have promoted themselves very cleverly as the Champions of "Joe public", manipulated the "mystic" of safety to such an extent that the average punter and the politicians are convinced, anyone involved in aviation is a homicidal lunatic hell bent on wiping out the entire population.

Can anyone remember when CAsA had anything "Positive" to say about Aviation?

I sure cant, nothing but negatives, with them in shining armour protecting Joe Public from us.

Angel Flight in the USA is huge, by comparison, our operation is insignificant.

The FAA was wise enough to let it alone, because they realised the alternative was people taking to the road.

CAsA would take the view that people dying on the road was a good thing because it would not reflect on them.

[Jack Ranga]

Aussie Bob, some of that stuff was OK, wish we were as enlightened when I did my trade, a case of industrial deafness with tinutus is not all that pleasant :ugh:

[Aussie Bob]

Look no further than the rest of the aviation industry, and in particular GA to see the result of unfettered bureaucracy in action.


Thorn Bird , that sums it up. I am gobsmacked that the majority on this thread are supporting legislation.

No need to bang your head on a wall Jack, I left school for the building sites of the 70's. Surely you have learned by now that self harm is pointless.

[Jack Ranga]

That's the tinitus Bob :ugh:

[dubbleyew eight]

double N as in tinnitus jack :E

[Jack Ranga]

W8, I couldn't hear in spelling class :E

[Wallsofchina]

This is a discussion paper only, so you have the opportunity to have these comments included to balance what CASA want
CASA have nominated some preferences which seem to me to mainly move liability from CASA to the people carrying out the service.

If you look at the Horsham crash and the workload of the pilot that day, and the decisions he made, you'd have to say AF has elements of commercial requirements.

The ATSB report mentions ten North American organisations doing similar work and found one required a course to mitigate pressure and manage risk, one required all flights to be daytime VFR, and three required pilots to be instrument rated - all a bit haphazard, but being a DP you've got the opportunity of getting something sensible on paper. As someone mentioned there have probably been other incidents in addition to the Horsham crash.

http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/4462266/ao-2011-100_final.pdf

[172driver]

Does anyone know how this is handled in the USA , Canada and Europe?

Short answer - it isn't.

Longer answer:
Europe - all air ambulance flights are flown by professional crews (unless repatriating, mostly helos, the distances to the nearest hospital A&E aren't great enough)

USA - there is something similar, but AFAIK again flown by professional crews (it's mainly biz jet owners donating time in their aircraft)

Canada - no idea

[Old Akro]

Short answer - it isn't.

172guy. You couldn't be more wrong. There are a number of Angel Flight operations in the US that operate quite similarly to Australia.

Angel Flight West | Angel Flight West is a nonprofit, volunteer-driven organization that arranges free, non-emergency air travel for children and adults with serious medical conditions and other compelling needs. (http://www.angelflightwest.org/)

- AngelFlight.com ? People Helping People in Need (http://www.angelflight.com/)

The US based AOPA provides support for charitable flights:

Guide to Charitable/Nonprofit/Community Event Sightseeing Flights - AOPA (http://www.aopa.org/Advocacy/Regulatory-,-a-,-Certification-Policy/Guide-to-Charitable-Nonprofit-Community-Event-Sightseeing-Flights)

Its all quite well organised, and anyone who is familiar with the Australian operation knows that it revised its pilot qualification & recency protocols some years ago based on its leaning from the US organisations.

[LeadSled]

Folks,
This has all the hallmarks of the usual CASA approach, a solution in search of a problem.

Funnily enough, CASA reported to the Forsyth review that all the recommendations of the Hawke Report were being implemented, including Byron's Directive 1 of 2007.

As far as I can see, nothing could be further from the truth, and I certainly can't find 1/2007 of anything like it on the CASA web site.

Just to remind you, this 1/2007 required comprehensive risk analysis to determine if, as a last resort (not the first) any regulatory action was to be needed. Then that proposed regulatory action had to be fully cost/benefit justified.

Something similar is going on with executive flying, where CASA want to impose all the elements of a AOC on what are now private operations --- with an impeccable safety record.

Tootle pip!!

[Creampuff]

The fundamental and chronic structural problem here is that CASA is simply not competent to make the decisions that have to be made in order to build a coherent classification of operations scheme.

How many lives are saved by Angel Flight and lost by Angel Flight, operating in accordance with the current rules? Where is the proof of a causal link between changing the rules and changing the lives saved and lost?

If the rules were changed so as to prevent Angel Flights that would otherwise have been permitted under the current rules, how many lives will be lost that would otherwise have been saved, and how many lives will be saved that would otherwise have been lost? What would the cost be to continue the same number of Angel Flights but at a different standard?

What is the cost of transport, by road, of persons who would otherwise have been carried on Angel Flights? Is that cost in excess of the cost of carrying those persons on Angel Flights? Would it be more cost effective to carry medical experts to the patient? Would it be more cost effective to build more hospitals?

CASA is simply not competent to assess or decide the relevant risks, costs or benefits, and is not competent to decide where to set the balance.

It’s like making the police responsible for the road toll and giving them power to determine the speed limit. The police don’t have the power or budget to build better roads, so what response would we expect to road accidents.

That’s one of the reasons Australia has the ever-growing regulatory Frankenstein it has in aviation.

(Notice I didn’t say “incompetent”: I said “not competent”. There is an important difference. It wouldn’t matter who CASA employed: CASA will never be competent to make the decisions that have to be made in order to build a coherent classification of operations scheme.)

[Jack Ranga]

This is a discussion paper only, so you have the opportunity to have these comments included to balance what CASA want

Do you think anyone in Australia will get off their arses rather than whinge & moan about CASA. The aviation community is pathetic in it's lobbying, if you call running to Dick Smith & begging him to get involved lobbying.

CASA have nominated some preferences which seem to me to mainly move liability from CASA to the people carrying out the service.

I certainly wouldn't like to be liable for something I don't control.

If you look at the Horsham crash and the workload of the pilot that day, and the decisions he made, you'd have to say AF has elements of commercial requirements.

Of course they have. Certainly not implied by them. I have no doubt that they don't imply any pressure themselves. Some pilots do a very good job of putting that pressure on themselves.

The ATSB report mentions ten North American organisations doing similar work and found one required a course to mitigate pressure and manage risk, one required all flights to be daytime VFR, and three required pilots to be instrument rated - all a bit haphazard, but being a DP you've got the opportunity of getting something sensible on paper. As someone mentioned there have probably been other incidents in addition to the Horsham crash.

All worth looking at. Why is it you all jump up & down (whinge, bitch & moan) rather than contribute to a discussion that can possibly make something safer & more accountable?

[B772]

A UAV Operators Certificate with all the trimming's is now required for certain model aircraft operations.

[QSK?]

It should be highlighted that flight qualifications and experience for Angel Flight pilots in the US vary widely from region to region with most AF organisations requiring pilots to have a current instrument rating. Go to:

Pilot Information | Angel Flight (http://www.angelflightsoars.org/AngelFlightContentPage.aspx?nd=56)
Angel Flight East (http://www.angelflighteast.org/pilots.html)
Qualification Requirements (http://www.angelflightmidatlantic.org/pilots/qualification-requirements/)
Pilots - AngelFlight.com ? People Helping People in Need (http://www.angelflight.com/pilots/)
http://www.angelflightne.org/images/Docs/afne_pic_requirements.pdf

Compared to the US I think CASA's approach appears fairly restrained.

[Jack Ranga]

Queue the haters for expressing that opinion mate!

[Creampuff]

And naturally we wouldn't do some research to find out whether the accident and incident rates are any different as between the AF operations in the USA conducted by pilots with CIRs and those without.

Heaven forbid anyone would analyse the available data. :D

[thorn bird]

Creamie, if CAsA regulated angel flight out of existence.
From a purely legal perspective, could they be exposed legally, if someone got killed being transported by road?

[Creampuff]

Of course not. "Someone else" killed them.

The political aim of all governments and government agencies is to blame "someone else" and hope the punters fall for it.

In Australia, it's a very safe bet, although the punters seem to be slowly waking up to it.

I set very high standards for my medical-related flights: Transport Category certified aircraft only, and only to airports with CAT III ILS. Zero accidents so far. Therefore, that's obviously where the regulatory standard should be set. Surely. :ok:

[Jack Ranga]

And far be it for a regulator to be proactive & try & protect the travelling public from a system they know nothing about, at least educate them!

Interestingly, Angel Flight don't allow me to transport their 'customers' in my aircraft even though it's IFR category & I'm qualified to fly a Cat III ILS (Grade 2 Instructor with Instrument Training Approval & Current ME-CIR)

They must be doing some risk assessment for their operation?

[BlatantLiar]

"Interestingly, Angel Flight don't allow me to transport their 'customers' in my aircraft even though it's IFR category & I'm qualified to fly a Cat III ILS (Grade 2 Instructor with Instrument Training Approval & Current ME-CIR)"

Why?

[Aussie Bob]

Why?

Probably because your a blatant liar :cool:

Knowing the aircraft type may help with our guessing as well.

[BlatantLiar]

I was quoting and asking the rednut.

[BronteExperimental]

Experimental.....

BE

[BlatantLiar]

What better test subjects for an experimental then? Aye? Aye? :E

[Aussie Bob]

I was quoting and asking the rednut.

Whoops, could I miss Jack :(

[Jack Ranga]

Experimental. RV10

[Jack Ranga]

Not winding up anybody. The views I express are genuine. I don't believe that 250 hour pilots (or whatever the requirements were) should be transporting people to and from medical appointments with the implied pressure that goes with it.

If my views offend anyone, what can I say? Precious? I doubt my views will be taken into account & to tell you the truth I couldn't give rats arse ;)

[Jack Ranga]

............lol :D

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Jack, I think the question is harder to put. It is one of confidence more than competence. How can you tick that box when the CASA only knows how to test to forklift driver standard.

[Jack Ranga]

OZ, I'm all for risk assessment. I know what I was like at 250 hours :E

A fresh CPL at 250 hours, working for a flying organisation has the benefit of guidance from a Chief Pilot. A 250 hour pilot conducting an angel flight has the benefit of guidance from who?

If Angel Flight has excluded experimental aircraft from their operations they are obviously conducting risk assessment (and good on them). Surely it doesn't hurt to be proactive and talk to CAsA and nut out a responsible solution?

[Dexta]

Why does it have to be the Regulatory Body that has to come up with the requirements? Why can't Angel Flight do their own risk assessment (which they appear to be doing) and leave it at that, which it seems to be how the FAA and the various AF organisations in the USA have handled it. Why do we need more laws, red tape & bureaucracy?

[OZBUSDRIVER]

See your point, JR. If AF were to vet...or...be seen to vet their volunteer pilots wrt their professionalism in the task, would it avert the CASAs gaze? I look at from the initial contact on, to present myself as confident to act professionally as a pilot....but this is not the problem. The former is the case. Changes the argument somewhat.

Cart/Horse...demure and watch and learn.

[tecman]

Interesting thread, and some big issues to consider, not all of which are black-and-white legal ones. I'm a PPL and have done a little bit of "community flying" (not AF) and, while admiring the volunteer spirit in all its forms, I struggle to see how the needs of sick people on a schedule are compatible with VFR operations. However, even if a transport system is designed so that it's based on opportunistic VFR flights with a road back-up (or similar) plan, it's reasonable to require the pilots involved to have pretty substantial aeronautical experience, including a current NVFR or instrument rating.

I'm all for having a look at statistics (here and internationally) but some part of me says up-front that 250 hrs PPL experience is simply not enough. At 250 hrs I hope I was a good pilot - should have been, what with all the endorsements, ratings etc around that point. But unless a pilot has an exceptional background, s/he just hasn't seen enough operational reality at that point.

I can appreciate the argument that the AF and similar flights are no different to any other PPL operations and, indeed, maybe there may actually be more informed consent with AF than on your average joy-flight. And yet... Somehow, the whole chain just looks harder to break with all those expectations around. Maybe I've just become more conservative over the years: for example, these days I'm less free with invitations to colleagues to accompany me on work flights. The legal aspects were sorted out long ago, so no dramas there. But expectation management on a non-recreational VFR flight can be a tricky thing, despite all the up-front briefings and explanations.

The CASA discussion document is actually pretty well written and clearly thought out. (They should give that guy a job writing the regs). Not all of the options are grouped as I'd combine them but, after all, it is a discussion paper. And it's entirely proper that a "safety" authority review community service flying, just as it would be entirely proper for them to ultimately decide to leave it to AF and others to administer agreed volunteer standards.

[Creampuff]

So let’s say we set the standard so that a student pilot can conduct AFs.

Run me through the actual costs and actual benefits of setting the standard there.

Let’s say we set the standard at ATPL/RPT AOC to conduct AFs.

Run me through the actual costs and actual benefits of setting the standard there.

If there is no reliable cost benefit data and analysis, setting the standard is merely someone’s arse pluck (and if CASA’s making the decision, it will always be an arse pluck).

We (probably safely) assume that if the standard is set ‘higher’, there will be fewer accident and incidents. But that’s the easy bit. Even CASA can make that assumption. The hard bit is measuring the opportunity costs of moving the standard ‘higher’ and deciding whether it’s a cost worth paying or not. CASA’s not competent to make those measurements or decisions.

[tecman]

It'd be entirely possible to pay any number of consultants a shirt-load of money to do a cost-benefit study, typically on the basis of derived financial metrics. Of course, they'll still include a section on what they can't turn into money, and you'll be back at exercising some judgement. Mind you, this particular investigation would be far more tractable analytically than many they turn their hands to.

Would it be a good idea? Probably. Who pays? Don't know. Maybe find a community-spirited consultancy. As an aside, a few comparable studies of volunteer organizations have returned verdicts of substantial previously-unquantified benefits - might even be the case with AF. Of course, many people in those organizations didn't need boy-scout consultants to tell them that they were doing good things.

[Jack Ranga]

Why would you need an ATPL?

I'm talking about having a mentor program for the low timers. I'm talking about having a senior pilot within the organisation monitoring pilot activities/experience/recency. Setting standards.

It doesn't need CAsA intervention if it's done proactively & consultatively.

I merely said at the start of this 'why wouldn't they have a look at this if people using the service have been killed'

It's their frigging job to monitor it, if they didn't you'd whinge about that.

[kaz3g]

Why would you need a CPL or a NVFR rating?

Isn't the issue one of flying within one's limitations at all times? Surely, that's what each of us must do every time we press a starter button?

I've flown in every State and Territory in the country, much of it in remote areas. I plan carefully, I check the weather, I carry my emergency rations and equipment and I'm always prepared to put it on the deck if things look iffy. I cruise at 100 knots (and my stalling speed is 28 knots) with an endurance of 0330 only. My Auster has an 0-320 160 hp engine and is maintained by a LAME.

Clearly, this means I am more limited in my flying versatility than some one flying something bigger, faster, with substantially greater range and lots more instruments to play with than a 6 pack. But I can't see that it means I am any less safe than the speed driver in his Mooney or whatever.

Each of us has to fly within our personal capabilities and the capabilities of our particular aircraft.


Kaz

[TBM-Legend]

Time for this to hit the media. TV, print and Alan Jones

[ozbiggles]

Well it didn't work too well in the case at the heart of this thread did it

Not referring to the mentoring, that would be a good idea.

[TBM-Legend]

Good to see Bill in The Australian today telling it like it is...

[Mach E Avelli]

Not wishing to argue the case for CASA interference, but Bill Bristow's statement - to quote: "In short, there is nothing about our charity's operation that needs addressing" would be guaranteed to ring alarm bells at Fort Fumble.

[Creampuff]

Let's go crazy and think this through.

What happens if the standard is set to e.g. current IFR rating as a minimum, and there's an accident? The response must be: Set the standard to e.g. current IFR rating and CPL as a minimum.

Why not do the logical thing and just set the standard where it must inevitably be set? ATPL/RPT/CATIII ILS operations only.

On what ground would the standard be set other than the highest possible standard?

[Frank Arouet]

Before setting new regulatory standards we should remember the spirit in which most of these flights are made and use this as the template for common sense. I can remember the standard for declaring a "mercy flight" and from memory very few successful flights garnered more than a verbal explanation. A quick but probably inaccurate search found this link: http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:OLDASSET::svPath=/newrules/parts/091/download/,svFileName=ac091-170.pdf


There are two ways of constructing a regulatory design standard. One way is to make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult. This is why CAsA opt for the latter.


Some may find the following link both enlightening and entertaining in the current thread.


Nancy Bird-Walton (1915-2009), Australian Pioneer Aviatrix (http://www.ctie.monash.edu.au/hargrave/nancy_bird_walton_bio.html)

[BlatantLiar]

Expect more of these to pop up at an airport near you!

http://i.imgur.com/U0xnsLX.jpg

[sprocket check]

When has regulatory over****e instigated by CASA helped anything other than reduce the amount of aviating done?

[Jack Ranga]

Exactly, better off sorting it out yourself.

[Aerodynamisist]

Somebody has to stick up for CASA in this case, and as much as it irks me to back them up, its Just CASA doing the job they are employed to do.
That job is protecting the PUBLIC from risk, that means in many cases protecting the public from poorly conceived though well meaning pilots. Australian pilots need to be disabused of the notion that CASA are here to look after us and facilitate our activities, the days of old mate the FOI who looks after the locals went out with smoking on airliners.

Allowing medivac flights and walking wounded and "transport to to care" to be provided to the general public in single engine piston light aircraft flown by Walter Mitty ppl's is allot or RISK with little to no justification.

I have seen allot of angel flights take place and they were all single engine piston with a PPL at the controls. You can't tell me that a there is not a higher level of risk involved in this type of operation. When you consider A whole fleet of king air, PC 12, caravans, bell 412 and dauphins are parked on aprons all around Australia with trained professional pilots that are ready NOW to go help the sick and injured. I call bull**** on the "mercy flight excuse".

[Creampuff]

So where do you reckon the minimum standard be set, and what do you reckon should happen if someone is killed or injured while being carried at that standard?

[Aussie Bob]

I have seen allot of angel flights take place and they were all single engine piston with a PPL at the controls. You can't tell me that a there is not a higher level of risk involved in this type of operation. When you consider A whole fleet of king air, PC 12, caravans, bell 412 and dauphins are parked on aprons all around Australia with trained professional pilots that are ready NOW to go help the sick and injured. I call bull**** on the "mercy flight excuse".

Yeah yeah yeah, let's just shut them down. Let the bastards travel by road. AeroD, who is paying for your suggestions and how many Angel Flights have you really witnessed?

[kaz3g]

.

Allowing medivac flights and walking wounded and "transport to to care" to be provided to the general public in single engine piston light aircraft flown by Walter Mitty ppl's is allot or RISK with little to no justification.

I have seen allot of angel flights take place and they were all single engine piston with a PPL at the controls. You can't tell me that a there is not a higher level of risk involved in this type of operation. When you consider A whole fleet of king air, PC 12, caravans, bell 412 and dauphins are parked on aprons all around Australia with trained professional pilots that are ready NOW to go help the sick and injured. I call bull**** on the "mercy flight excuse".

I agree that allowing Walter Mitty PPLs to undertake any flights would be a high risk scenario but I disagree with the implied assertion that this is regularly or even occasionally the case, I note, too, that you include SE types in your list of those just waiting to be flown by "professional" pilots so perhaps your blanket inclusion of them in your proscription is a tad unwarranted? The 0-320 Lycoming would have to be the most reliable certified piston around. Yes turbines are nice but they are bloody expensive and we are talking about the work of a charity here, not a profit-making corporation.

Perhaps the whole AF ought just be shut down, eh?

That old "trained professional" v the volunteer chestnut. We need to separate the different connotations of "professional" to get some sense of what you are saying: the "professional" that is making her living from the activity or the "professional" who carries out their activity competently and with exactitude?

It's surely about the pilot operating at all times within the limits of her capability and the capability of the aircraft and I don't think that is achieved simply because she has a stripe on her shoulder and 300 hours AE.

Kaz

[Frank Arouet]

A "mercy flight" can be "declared" by a pilot during the course of a flight if the need arises, and may have put a different outcome on the Victorian Angel Flight prang if it gave the pilot an option for assistance before he was dangerously putting lives at risk and possibly breaking the law. A bit like declaring an emergency if a VFR pilot is stuck on top. Nobody (except CAsA) think badly of you for it. There used to be amnesty's for pilots who put the legality of the flight below the safety of the immediate situation. The concept needs exploring rather than regulating the intent and spirit of altruism. Calling it bull**** simply exemplifies the confused professional elitism over amateur enthusiasm in the general aviation community. All Olympic athletes were once amateur. It's a pity in many ways that professionalism put paid to much that was fair and has cost much in tarnishing athletics by drug cheating and the like.


To be fair I haven't met anybody that was a professional pilot before he was a private pilot. Indeed the hour building at that level improved the ability of the pilot by exposure to experience.


Finally, if CAsA think anything needs regulating I am opposed to it on principle until I have independent proof to the contrary. Their record speaks for itself.

[sprocket check]

Frank: MOST Olympic athletes ARE amateurs.

AeroD:

I have seen allot of angel flights take place and they were all single engine piston with a PPL at the controls. You can't tell me that a there is not a higher level of risk involved in this type of operation. When you consider A whole fleet of king air, PC 12, caravans, bell 412 and dauphins are parked on aprons all around Australia with trained professional pilots that are ready NOW to go help the sick and injured. I call bull**** on the "mercy flight excuse".

You are describing a sickness that pervades ALL of GA and has nothing of relevance to AF unless you are suggesting that it becomes a commercial operation. Which would be great and it should be funded by CASA. Or it should be operated by CASA and pilots should be FOIs on their off duty time as a service to the community. Or, just so you don't have this eyesore of idle aircraft at your field, they should be all nationalised by CASA and dispersed to all the airfields in AU and territories, at least one per airfield. Along with a MRO, fully staffed and capable with proper training, supervisory oversight and regular inspections, rotating stores and supplies, etc...:ugh::ugh:

sc
Black humour is in my blood, both an unfortunate perspective and a survival mechanism.

[Frank Arouet]

Olympic athletes WERE amateurs. Any athlete that accepts an endorsement for swimmers, shoes, or sunglasses is a professional athlete. I concur with the guts of your post and appreciate black humor. Something to thank contemporary CAsA for. In times long gone it was "educate, not regulate".

[yr right]

Nsw A/A almost lost a king air on more than than one occasion. Numerous rotor wing accidents Rfds engine failures on pc12 I more than one occasion. At the end of the day any time you take to the air risk are always there. But once again Australia runs on three things if your not in the 3 things you can all go and get stuffed.
3 things.
Sydney
Melbroune
Brisbane

F$&@ anyone in the bush that's just it !!!

[Sarcs]

Another female journalist that 'gets it'!:D:D:CASA wants to clip Angel Flight's wings (http://www.queenslandcountrylife.com.au/news/agriculture/general/healthcare/casa-wants-to-clip-angel-flights-wings/2710751.aspx?storypage=1)



RURAL Australia is in danger of losing one of its most cherished charity organisations if a preferred option put forward in a discussion paper on safety standards for community service flights is acted upon.

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) has just released what it calls “a first step” to stimulate discussion surrounding the regulation of community service flights, based on what it says is a desire for the best possible safety outcomes for everyone.

Angel Flight is the main volunteer group conducting these types of flights and its CEO says CASA’s favoured position will be “highly destructive” to the organisation, to the point where it would have to cease operating.
Bill Bristow describes CASA’s paper as “make or break” for the charity that has flown over 16,500 missions and helped more than 2500 people in its 11 years of existence.

Although 10 options are presented in the paper, canvassing a range of administrative changes, option five – establishing an approved self-administering aviation organisation – is CASA’s preferred method of meeting its safety management goals.

“There are charitable organisations that already function as a kind of ‘booking agency’ for the conduct of community service flights,” the discussion paper noted.

“If this proposed regulatory model is adopted, such organisations would be expected to ensure that the pilots and aircraft meet specified standards when conducting such activities under the organisation’s auspices.”

It lists responsibilities including assessing and authorising pilots, assessment and approval of aircraft, regular pilot proficiency checking, and pilot and aircraft tasking.

Mr Bristow said this would entail setting up a “huge, demanding and complex bureaucracy” that would “kill Angel Flight dead”.

The group has identified an “astronomical” rise in insurance costs if Angel Flight were to become responsible for private pilots making private flights, as just one of the consequences.
“We don’t believe it’s necessary and 100 per cent of our pilots say it’s not necessary either,” he said.


“Our pilots are highly regulated already by CASA, and we have higher entry level credentials than CASA requires.

“Our requirement is for a minimum of 250 hours in command.”
Angel Flight also insists its pilots have regular reviews and asks for photocopy proof of proficiency checks.

While Mr Bristow said none of the options put forward in the discussion paper were necessary, he believed that if there were any issues, it was up to CASA to address them through their current standards.

“We are not an aviation organisation. We’re like a dating agency – we find people in need and introduce them to the resources they need.

“What we do is like driving your friend to hospital.”

In the 11 years that Angel Flight has been operating in Australia, one fatal crash has taken place, at Nhill in Victoria.

The coroner said at the time that “in the circumstances I do not consider there is cause to make adverse comment about the role of Angel Flight in this case”.

CASA’s manager for corporate communications, Peter Gibson said the growth of community service flights over the years meant it was appropriate to consider the level of safety passengers receive.

Although he agreed that comprehensive regulations were in place for all operations, he said CASA was committed to working to continually improve safety.

“It is widely recognised that the availability of community service flights fills an important community need, and as they become more widely used, pilot qualifications, pilot experience and aircraft certification and maintenance standards could become significant risk factors,” the discussion paper states.

The preamble is a minefield of bureaucratic conjecture, listing objections to maintaining the status quo such as “a lack of transparency as to choice of aircraft and pilot” and “a lack of clarity as to the level of responsibility that each agent assumes when a flight is conducted”.
The paper also swerves away from safety issues to expressing a concern that medical professionals aren’t able to decide whether a patient’s circumstances warrant Angel Flight’s services, although a check of the organisation’s website shows that it is medical practitioners, nurses and social workers who register mission requests.


A similar lack of knowledge of Angel Flight’s basic operation is shown when the paper says that “unless controls are put in place, the aircraft involved could potentially vary from an amateur-built experimental aircraft through to a turbine powered corporate aircraft”.

“We don’t allow experimental aircraft,” Mr Bristow commented. “That’s just not valid to raise.”

Mr Gibson said that CASA would listen to what everyone had to say, would think about the responses and determine the appropriate way forward.

“No action will be taken until all responses and submissions have been considered,” he said.

Predicting an enormous backlash from country people, Mr Bristow urged people with concerns for the future of Angel Flight to put a submission in before the closing date of October 10, and to contact their local MP.
<LI style="LIST-STYLE-POSITION: inside">The discussion paper can be accessed here. (http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/newrules/ops/download/dp1317os.pdf) http://www.queenslandcountrylife.com.au/images/1pxclear.gif"The huge, demanding and complex bureaucracy would kill Angel Flight dead."

I might suggest that if the current status quo continues to exist then Angel Flight will not be on their 'Pat Malone'...:{

MTF..:ok:

http://www.queenslandcountrylife.com.au/images/1pxclear.gif

[thorn bird]

"I might suggest that if the current status quo continues to exist then Angel Flight will not be on their 'Pat Malone'"

Heard a rumour that one or two industry heavy hitters have made that plain to the "Wuss", if things continue as they are they will be pulling the pin and investing their money somewhere other than aviation.

[Aussie Bob]

the charity that has flown over 16,500 missions and helped more than 2500 people in its 11 years of existence.

In the 11 years that Angel Flight has been operating in Australia, one fatal crash has taken place, at Nhill in Victoria.

Let's shut down this dangerous organisation and make the country bumkins travel by road, I am sure it will be safer.

[Jabawocky]

"The huge, demanding and complex bureaucracy would kill Angel Flight dead."

Just like it is slowly killing off the rest of the industry. Part 145 just one that springs to mind.

[thorn bird]

"Just like it is slowly killing off the rest of the industry. Part 145 just one that springs to mind".

Jabs,

Mate, what you fail to realize is there are a lot of CAsA staff who have invested in Warehouse building companies.

Part 145 is a boon to these companies.

All the Part 145 paperwork has to be stored somewhere, warehouse building is the new "Education Revolution", instead of school halls their building warehouses.

In case you haven't heard, modern aircraft no longer need maintenance, ( Hey, the Leprechaun said so!!) just lots of paperwork, your modern aircraft engineer will no longer need to know what a spanner is, his primary skillset will be, getting that tick squarely in the box.

[rutan around]

Our fearless aviation leader wrote this in answer to an article by Des Houghton in the Courier Mail on Saturday. Such an article by a right wing writer in a far right wing paper (I use the term 'paper' loosely) must have shaken him up a bit.

An answer in the very next edition. Unheard of. This man is so busy helping Abbott screw the poor that he hasn't had time in more than 330days to meet with Angel Flight's Australian initiator Bill Bristowto discuss the matter. He is probably too scared to mention a thought bubble of introducing a $7,000 co-payment for Angel Flights.


http://i465.photobucket.com/albums/rr13/scud_2008/Truss.jpg

[tail wheel]

Interesting.

So if I read that correctly, to avoid Ministerial responsibility, turn a Government department into a statutory body, appoint a Board and the Minister washes his hands of any further responsibility?

What a nifty lurk! I wonder whether the Minister's salary is reduced due to his reduced responsibilities? :confused:

[Frank Arouet]

If, as he asserts, the Minister has nothing to do with this, it would make me awfully happy to know if Bill Bristow has had any meeting with CAsA and what was resolved. I can't see this going away and the thought of Angel Flight not being there will impact upon that same Minister via his constituents if he stays asleep on the job.


Does the member for Kennedy know anything about this? He usually gets a question or two in the House of Representatives which he could direct to Truss without notice.

[aroa]

The Member for Kennedy, traverses his huge electorate using GA..but unfortunately Bob has his head stuck up his...hat.
No further correspondence will be entered into. Fini.

A question for AeroD...the guy who knows how the wing works?,

Please tell me this. What is it that a PPL does NOT do when he flies an aircraft from A to B.. that is different/deficient from a CPL flying from A to B.
S/E Day VFR.

And I'll give you a very sobering statistic to chew on...
When CAsA were spending tens of thousands of dollars chasing a PPL all over Australia...solo with camera only on board, in the Cape York region alone there were SEVEN CPL light and twin charter accidents and TWENTY ONE fatalities.

So you can see where their priorities REALLY lie. And it aint "safety"

Last weeks thought bubble from the Non Aviation House crowd, ( what shall we do this week to keep ourselves occupied?) was Angel Flight.

Next week it will be , lets see ah gliding uses tow pilots flying powered a/c. They might crash, ..lets get into overseeing that..to make it "safer", of course...after all we are the "experts"
Never mind that has been the balliwick of the Gliding Federation for the last 50 years.

OH right they tried that on about 15 years ago..and where did that go.???
A few folk got glider flights and some all expenses paid trips around the traps touring the county, sticking their bib in. And then it all faded away !!!

And the next brain snap will be????

[Frank Arouet]

Parachute operations?

[aroa]

Oh God, yes, oh yes Frank you're onto something there.
Those "meat bombers" are soooo dangerous. Something must be done to keep the world safe from falling aeroplanes ,,( as well as bodies)

And that's not all... Skydiving businesses make big bucks... oh how awful Commerce Its part of GA too...stop it at once.
COMMERCE !!!.. go and wash yr mouth out ...we cant have that. !!
And... AND they even employ PPLs as pilots..sounds very unsafe and dodgy to me. And they even get paid ( sometimes) sounds dodgy AND illegal to me.

Were you aware that a Charter operator that flies boxes of crabs down from the Cape has to have a COMMERCIAL Licence and Skydive operators carrying real live people only have to have a PPL.? (Im quoting from a letter in the Cairns Post years ago by some CAsA tosser. Who made the rules again???)
Its shockingly unsafe and has been for decades, especially when there are drop zones near airfields. And airliners too. And cars on the road. Could be even helicopters in the vicinity Or Sailplanes and Tow planes..and they dont have CPLs either. This smacks of aviation getting out of control.
It ALL must be stopped.

[Howabout]

Essentially correct, tail wheel (post # 93), as I understand the ‘theoretical’ arrangements. However, having a board does not preclude the Minister from issuing broad direction as regards government expectation in respect of priorities and, by extension, the manner in which regulation is framed and its concomitant outcomes on industry. The Minister has the power to 'direct' in this manner, regardless of statutory-body status.

The press release is a chimera regarding where the buck stops and is an exercise in poor semantics. The Minister may feel some relief that the bureaucrats have given him a superficial out, but it's a mirage in respect of ultimate ministerial responsibility.

By implication (and taking the scenario to extremes), CASA could make a regulation that says left-handed pilots are dangerous and are now disendorsed. They are that free according to that sham of a press release. And, according to the release, the Minister would have no power to influence the decision. What utter rubbish!

As I said, the Minister is able to define government expectations. Those expectations may be of a strategic nature, and not down in the weeds, but cogent guidance from government in the form of a ‘letter of charter’ is within the Minister’s purview and an elected government’s right. Set the strategic direction, which is the elected government’s responsibility, and the paper-pushers are obliged to fall into line. If they don’t, the Minister is entirely within his rights to ‘kick ass and take names,’ regardless of whether he has a board between himself and the bureaucracy.

Unfortunately, the current incumbent, to me, has never come across as having the necessary spine to fulfil his obligations in respect of setting the broad agenda on behalf of the elected government. This is his second go, and he’s been as unimpressive as his first time around. He has the wherewithal to fix this mess, but he’s happy to hide behind the bureaucracy and be a ditherer. Truss = dither.

Enough of a rant from me, but the BS surrounding this issue just astounds.


I'd like to hear Sunny's opinion, and I'd also like to know where Dick stands on this one, despite our crossing swords in the past.

[Creampuff]

Alas, CASA created itself.

The Parliament didn’t make and can’t change the legislation that created CASA and defines and constrains its functions and powers. Governments therefore can’t introduce any legislation into the Parliament to change anything.

Alas, CASA funds itself.

CASA prints its own money. The Parliament doesn’t pass appropriation Bills appropriating money from consolidated revenue for CASA to spend.

There is nothing anyone can do. All the Parliament can do is sit by and occasionally wave a rhetorical fist at CASA.

(Pssssst. Pssssst. Yes: Over here. I’ll let you in on a secret:

Actually, the government could legislate to do whatever it liked with CASA, including disappearing it.

But the government doesn’t want to.

It doesn’t want to, because it doesn’t need to in order to protect its political interests. )

[CoodaShooda]

Geez Creamy, I thought you'd lost the plot with the first part of that post. Good recovery but.

How would a government go about closing down CASA and outsourcing the function to, say, CAA (NZ)?

[Frank Arouet]

Speaking about appropriations;


The Senate could, if it were important to them, stop supply. Been done before and brought one PM undone. A Deputy PM would not feature in the theatre of operations. This may keep the dynamic within acceptable political boundary's. I wonder what the GG thinks of all this. I'm told he is very approachable, is his own man, and tolerates most ranks legitimate complaints. I wonder if Xenaphon has this power of independence to co-opt the Pups?

[Creampuff]

How would a government go about closing down CASA and outsourcing the function to, say, CAA (NZ)?That’s easy.

But that won’t help unless the regulatory Frankenstein that is the Australian regulations is also destroyed. CAA NZ would simply find itself captive of the same Frankenstein.

Australia needs a new regulatory regime, first. Who runs the regulatory authority in that new regime is step 2.

The fundamental, chronic problem in Australia is that governments continue to leave it to the regulatory authority to drive the development of the regulatory regime the regulator administers, including the regulator’s own role in that regime. Surprise, surprise: The regulator’s response to any and every perceived problem is more regulation and more expensive interactions with the regulator.

The fact that the opportunity cost of 'safer' skies may be to expose people to greater risk elsewhere is not CASA's 'problem'. Community Service Flight regulation: QED. Die through lack of medical treatment or in a long road trip trying to get it? Not CASA's problem.

[Sunfish]

CASA has decided to shut Angel Flight down. That much is obvious.

The method chosen is called "File stuffing". That too is obvious.

The method involves starting a file on the activities of Angel Flight and recording and filing detailed observations of any infraction of any rule by an Angel Flight pilot.

Make no mistake, CASA are out to get Bristow. The initial "discussion" paper was actually a call to arms to every flight operations inspector and airworthiiness inspector in Australia to redouble and triple scrutiny of every pilot and aircraft in the Angel Flight fleet.

To put that another way, The "meta message" - the message you are sending when you dont say you are sending a message is simple; CASA thinks Angel Flight must be closed and it is the duty of every CASA employee to make it so.

When the file reaches about Four inches thick and another incident occurs, say a wheels up landing somewhere, CASA pounces. The pull out the file and thump it on the tale saying "the contents of this file PROVE Angel Flight is a safety menace and the minutiae of all the reports of flat tyres, out of date charts, unrestrained baggage and missing spare spectacles are simply too voluminous to defend in detail and you are f^&%ed.

Why is Angel Flight under attack? Simple,, it is building enough community support nationally to attain the status of a national Icon, and if that happens CASA can't attack it any more than they could the Royal Flying Doctor Service or Bondi Surf club without a national outcry.

CASA may have left its run too late though if Angel Flight, realising that it is now prey, decides to build its public profile.

[CoodaShooda]

Sorry Creamy

Should have added that the apointment is to design, construct and operate a new framework.

Was thinking CAA would have one they could take down off the shelf.

[thorn bird]

What is different to young billy PPL taking a few mates on a flight or taking a sick person to hospital? They are private flights.

What CAsA is suggesting is Angel Flight should apply for and be granted a "Claytons" AOC. Given the multitude of different types used for these flights, everything from 172's to corporate jets, a couple of million should cover it, and one or two years of pissing about, getting all the various "Expert" FOI's to agree what should be in the manuals and how the aircraft should be flown.

Last time I looked which was a while ago, the NSW air Ambo king airs were costing the guv mint $8,000 an hour, at that time I could charter a Falcon 900 for that.

Sad but maybe Angel flight could change to Angel drive and find a few volunteers to drive people to hospital. Subsequent road deaths could be attributed to a minister who has stated he has no control over CAsA. One thing for sure the DAS and his predecessor, who I'm sure dreamt this up, will have blood on their hands, not that they would give a damn.

[TBM-Legend]

Shame on CASA...

Bill B you're the man!

[Sunfish]

Cleared to enter:

CASA has decided to shut Angel Flight down. That much is obvious...........
Why would they want to do that?

I will try to explain. Basically it is the same reason as dictatorships always shut down religions. and any alternate form of organisation - they represent a threat to the established order.

CASA sees Angel Flight as a threat because it provides a focus for private pilots that may one day threaten CASAs god given right to do with us as they please because It raises the profile of private aviation in the eyes of the general public.

To put it another way, when CASA takes your licence or grounds your aircraft, the general public don't give a damn - you are just some rich silvertail getting what they deserve.

CASA's nightmare is a group of private pilots sticking up for their rights - standing up to CASA, with the general public behind them and that is what Angel Flight could threaten to be.

To put that another way, any aviation organisation that is independent of CASA is a threat to its omnipotence. RAA, SAAA etc. are NOT a threat precisely because they are required to be subservient to CASA in order to exist. Make trouble and the "exemption" that allows you to live disappears.

Its very clear Angel Flight must bow down to CASA or be destroyed. CASA is attacking Angel Flight by trying to define a new category of operations somewhere between private and charter that requires regulation.

To put it yet another way, any aviation activity that does not require CASA intervention must not be allowed to exist. If Angel Flight continues, they reason, all sorts of other forms of self organising aviation activity could follow.

[Frank Arouet]

Trouble is they make the regulations, and police the regulations, and prosecute the regulations, then appeal to the last cent in the taxpayers purse to defend any decision that goes against them in the AAT. (CAsA don't like real Courts).


If we relieve them of the prosecution phase because it's "blameable" on DPP, who it should be outsourced to, leave the policing to the Federal Police who are good at that sort of thing, we may have something actionable by objection via the "discovery"/ NPRM process.


Once their wings are clipped to this point you can argue the NZ Regs and reform the regulator and the regulatory review process in one go.


Oh, and rid the planet of the AAT and Commonwealth Ombudsman who I believe have been compromised. The ICC is a joke and should be treated as such. One more thing, give the DAS job to Mike Smith.

[Sarcs]

From the Daily Liberal..:D:

Fears for future of Angel Flight (http://www.dailyliberal.com.au/story/2586658/angel-flight-fight/?cs=112)

By NADINE MORTON

Sept. 26, 2014, 10 a.m.

THE end of Angel Flight is inevitable if the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) has its way, according to Graeme Burke, who has flown for the charity for the past 15 years.

THE end of Angel Flight is inevitable if the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) has its way, according to Graeme Burke, who has flown for the charity for the past 15 years.

CASA has put forward a discussion paper on safety in “community service flights” for public comment, and new safety standards and regulatory constraints are included.
Mr Burke fears the worst.

Angel Flight works across regional and rural Australia to provide free non-emergency flights for people facing bad health, poor finances and long distances.

Mr Burke has volunteered his time, his plane, and his fuel to the charity over the 15 years, and said he has real fears the charity will be “devastated” if the changes are implemented.

“The discussion paper’s no more than a smoke screen,” he said.
“I just think they’ve already made their decision ... if they implement all these changes that’ll be the end.”

Angel Flight chief executive officer and founder Bill Bristow said the CASA discussion paper has caused fear and concern in the charity and among its volunteers.

“[It] will force Angel Flight to take full responsibility for training [their] 2800 pilots, and be accountable for their planes and aircraft maintenance,” he said.

“We would have to cease as a charity and become a bureaucratic aviation organisation.”

Mr Burke believes an Angel Flight accident on August 15, 2011 in Victoria that killed three people could also have contributed to CASA’s proposed safety changes.

“When people were killed in Victoria doing an Angel Flight, I thought then ‘this will be the death of it all’,” he said.

While some changes to standards were enforced by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau following the fatal accident, Mr Burke said society’s “path of litigation” has also had an impact.

“It’s just a very, very sad way we seem to be going, we hide behind safety ... it’s just overboard, we’re strangling ourselves in red tape.”

While the deadline for all community submissions is October 10, 2014, Mr Bristow said this means they are being asked to continue flights under a “dark cloud of uncertainty”.

CASA rejected suggestions it is proposing to impose “crippling red tape” on community service flight operators.

They say the discussion paper was released so the public can understand the aviation safety standards currently provided on community service flights and consider whether there may be alternative ways of managing safety more effectively.

Nell’s fight for Angel Flight (http://www.edenmagnet.com.au/story/2578735/nells-fight-for-angel-flight/#slide=1)

Ps LOL when I saw the pilot's name, perhaps candidate for IOS spokesperson..:D

Angel Flight concerned about families potentially affected by new flight safety standards (http://www.armidaleexpress.com.au/story/2585062/angel-flight-concerned-about-families-potentially-affected-by-new-flight-safety-standards/?cs=471)

MTF...:ok:

[thorn bird]

Deja vue??

Infamous statement by senior CAsA director

"If I had my way the only aircraft operating in Australian skies would be RPT and the RAAF".

Thin edge of the wedge??

By attacking Angel Flight is CAsA actually saying ALL private aviation is unsafe??

Short step from there to a discussion paper on "should all private flying be banned" because its unsafe.

One things for sure CAsA's crock of sh#t reg's don't make it any safer!!

[Frank Arouet]

He's changed a bit since I last saw him.

[Sarcs]

The real PG rating stands up at about 01:15 on this MSN news video segment where he makes an appearance sprouting some more weasel words...:ugh:

New regulations could cripple Angel Flight (http://video.au.msn.com/watch/video/new-regulations-could-cripple-angel-flight/xrv1inr?from=dest_en-au&src=v5%253apause%253atitleBar%255elink%253a) Although in this Prime 7 news segment a couple of weeks later PG talks but only has a mugshot posted so you can't tell if his lips are moving or if indeed it is really PG...:rolleyes:

Concerns over future of Angel Flight (https://au.prime7.yahoo.com/n3/video/-/watch/25121400/concerns-over-future-of-angel-flight/)

[ABusboy]

well they could get their volunteers to register their A/c in NZ,Caymans or Vanuatu..leaves Casa out of it...for the time being until the confusion runs more rampant.

[Howard Hughes]

The fundamental, chronic problem in Australia is that governments continue to leave it to the regulatory authority to drive the development of the regulatory regime the regulator administers, including the regulator’s own role in that regime. Surprise, surprise: The regulator’s response to any and every perceived problem is more regulation and more expensive interactions with the regulator.
Best soliloquy yet describing our regulator! :D

With regard to Angel Flight I'm a little torn. Firstly anyone who needs urgent medical transport within Australia gets it, simple as that. So the people Angel Flight are transporting, are basically people who require air transport for convenience purposes. If that is the case, should the standard not be at least equivalent to 'charter' standard (or air transport under 119)?

Is there room for these type of flights to be included under the NPRM for aero-medical operations? Perhaps under a separate section for 'community flights'.

[thorn bird]

Question 1. is of course, who pays??.

The cost burden of regulation has already driven the cost of aviation to unaffordable levels. The Guv mint of course should subsidise these flights, its their screwed up regulations that make aviation so expensive.

Fat chance of that, not enough votes.

Question 2. Would a convoluted mass of red tape make it any safer than it is?

very doubtful.

Question3. By shutting community charities down completely make it any safer?.

Depends whether you believe its safer to drive than travel in a private aircraft.

This same propersition came up in the US, their versions of Angel Flight make out look like kiddies in a sand pit.

The FAA came to the conclusion that to regulate would drive up the costs so it became unaffordable, which would drive people onto the roads which was decidedly not as safe as private flights, so they left well enough alone.

Unfortunately the dipsticks who run our regulator cannot leave well enough alone.

Road statistics are not down to them so why should they worry, they don't care how many die on the roads, or because they can't get timely medical care.

Their entire focus is on next years bonus, nose in the trough, safety has nothing to do with it.

[Lookleft]

Its been fixed.:ok:

[LeadSled]

Or are they thinking they'd like some kind of de facto AOC imposed on private flights generally? Who knows. But it stinks. Clearedtoenter,
Some time ago, CASA proposed "Private AOCs" for all private operation, with the exception of the owner of the aircraft (yes, owner, not operator), with any passengers limited to the immediate family of the aircraft owner.

Indeed, the proposal was so extreme that even the senior management at the time, would not wear it.

As we see so often with CASA, it is really hard to kill a bad idea.

Shafting Angel Flight was just a new version of the "private AOC" lunacy.

its been fixed

Well done, Majorie Pagani!!

[Creampuff]

It's been fixed. For now.

And I'd suggest the various individuals that, and associations which, made submissions objecting to the proposal should share some of the credit for the outcome with Ms Pagani.

[aroa]

So says the header in Fridays Oz Aviation pages....

More like the tossers realized they were on a hiding to nowhere with a lot of bad publicity as well so they finally had to pull their collective heads in.

One only has to wonder at the colossal cost of this whole stupid exercise in money and time...for what ?? To create /justify continuing "employment"??
:mad:
The casa "code of conduct" (sic) says employees are not to waste taxpayers money...but who's listening.:mad:
In Fort Fumble pissing taxpayers dollars against the wall is a way of life..who cares.? Any of those charged with "governance"?...hardly.:mad:

Ms Pagani has a last word..."these were changes for no good reason"
Sound familiar?

Good result from Ms Pagani and all those complainants.:ok:

We need more of it. Long past time to tell CAsA where to get off.:ok:

[thorn bird]

Congratulations Ms Pagani.

A win, but I fear not the end.

Rule 101 with CAsA is they are never wrong, even when they are wrong.

Think John Quadrio.

Destroyed him financially, drove him to the point of self harm, destroyed his marriage, and they knew they were wrong.

There is a rumor Farkwitson spat the dummy over the decision to desist. You simply cannot win against the "Iron Ring".

I expect they will circle the wagons then find another way to get their way.

[LeadSled]

It's been fixed. For now.
And I'd suggest the various individuals that, and associations which, made submissions objecting to the proposal should share some of the credit for the outcome with Ms Pagani.

Creamie,
Agreed, this was one of the few occasions where a significant number of individuals and some of the associations actually did something useful, instead of just sitting on their collective arses and barking.
However, major credit should probably go to Bill Bristow, who really "rallied the troops".
I love your "for now", as I said in a previous post,within CASA it is almost impossible to kill a bad idea, look at the Part 132 NPRM.
Tootle pip!!