2 dead in Vic NW of Melb at Wallup
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: -28.1494 / 151.943
Age: 68
Posts: 463
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You mean all those DEAD aviators?
(damn I said no corrospondence would be entered into)
OverFienD, a pity you were so rushed that you didn't take the time to read and understand.
In no particular order -
Cost sharing on a private flight requires all participants to contribute equally. This is not the case with AF. Pilots may use their own aircraft or hire an aircraft, which the passengers do not contribute to the cost of; but the pilots do receive a benefit in fuel - ie it costs less than it otherwise would to do the AF trip.
The Red Tape you refer to has as its intent, the safety of all people participating in aviation. It is, to a greater or lesser extent, necessary. It may be that the investigation shows more 'Red Tape' applied to this organisations activities will make it safer. Where you get the two inferences you refer to is beyond me.
HACC buses are driven by accredited people (at least they are where I come from - maybe your area is different). Volunteer organisations have both government and their own mandated standards for volunteers, such as Blue Cards as an example. AF possibly needs more or higher standards if they are transporting the general public rather than their personal family or friends.
Private pilots don't fly missions. Private operations don't involve heroes. Check the NTSB reviews of causes of EMS crashes in USA for the basis to this. A 'mission' orientation and the hero appellation are tangibly dangerous as contributing factors to a 'must do' mindset.
AF doesn't act as a seat finder on already planned flights, it asks pilots to undertake a flight for a specific purpose.
Having a quasi-commercial operation working under the regulations governing private operations is a VERY slippery slope.
In no particular order -
Cost sharing on a private flight requires all participants to contribute equally. This is not the case with AF. Pilots may use their own aircraft or hire an aircraft, which the passengers do not contribute to the cost of; but the pilots do receive a benefit in fuel - ie it costs less than it otherwise would to do the AF trip.
The Red Tape you refer to has as its intent, the safety of all people participating in aviation. It is, to a greater or lesser extent, necessary. It may be that the investigation shows more 'Red Tape' applied to this organisations activities will make it safer. Where you get the two inferences you refer to is beyond me.
HACC buses are driven by accredited people (at least they are where I come from - maybe your area is different). Volunteer organisations have both government and their own mandated standards for volunteers, such as Blue Cards as an example. AF possibly needs more or higher standards if they are transporting the general public rather than their personal family or friends.
Private pilots don't fly missions. Private operations don't involve heroes. Check the NTSB reviews of causes of EMS crashes in USA for the basis to this. A 'mission' orientation and the hero appellation are tangibly dangerous as contributing factors to a 'must do' mindset.
AF doesn't act as a seat finder on already planned flights, it asks pilots to undertake a flight for a specific purpose.
Having a quasi-commercial operation working under the regulations governing private operations is a VERY slippery slope.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Age: 51
Posts: 931
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Al,
great response.
Cost sharing on a pvt flight actually doesn't require that the costs are shared equally. It actually denotes that the pilot must contribute a MINIMUM of his share of the cost basis. So if Mobil or what ever money gouging fuel company pays for the fuel, the pilot will have always contributed a greater share of the flights cost.
If this does not happen to be the case, you will probably find buried in all the crap that comes out of government a single paragraph expempting AF pilots from total adherance. The beaurocrat that proposed this, probably got a pay rise as the gov knows this course is cheaper than providing the service they collect taxes to provide.
So BLOODY true!!! I was reading the crap last week calling Cadel Evans a Hero..........not to me!!! A hero to me is the man who fights for his country, or stands up to a mugging or rushes into a burning house and drags out the occupants. Cadel Evans is a Champion!. The people who fly AF tasks, are Good Samaritans. Correct terminology should be applied to what a person strives to achieve.
REALLY!!! after all that has been said, you come up with this!!!
As someone else already pointed out, would you rather be flying in a CHARTER with a 200 hour cpl who is more interested in his hours/ego or a 500+ hour PPL who is striving on every flight to demonstrate his professionalism? Lets face it, the PPL at that level has no ambition other than to complete a safe flight. Take it from the boys that go on the BPPP's..........PPL's achieving higher standards than ATPL's on type...
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Realistically,
unless we can force the government to either a)put doctors in places needed or b) pay for the transportation of these patients, we should all get behind the people who fly AF tasks and support them. If we don't, a ****load of nice people/kids are going to find medical help inaccessible, or as someone else put it, dangerously accessible (long road trips)
If we run a thread denigrating AF's efforts then the self effacing 'crats will help CASA shut it down. The only positive in that I see is a fat bonus for the 'crat that signs it off as a job well done.
Cheers
Jas
great response.
Cost sharing on a pvt flight actually doesn't require that the costs are shared equally. It actually denotes that the pilot must contribute a MINIMUM of his share of the cost basis. So if Mobil or what ever money gouging fuel company pays for the fuel, the pilot will have always contributed a greater share of the flights cost.
If this does not happen to be the case, you will probably find buried in all the crap that comes out of government a single paragraph expempting AF pilots from total adherance. The beaurocrat that proposed this, probably got a pay rise as the gov knows this course is cheaper than providing the service they collect taxes to provide.
Private operations don't involve heroes
Having a quasi-commercial operation working under the regulations governing private operations is a VERY slippery slope.
As someone else already pointed out, would you rather be flying in a CHARTER with a 200 hour cpl who is more interested in his hours/ego or a 500+ hour PPL who is striving on every flight to demonstrate his professionalism? Lets face it, the PPL at that level has no ambition other than to complete a safe flight. Take it from the boys that go on the BPPP's..........PPL's achieving higher standards than ATPL's on type...
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Realistically,
unless we can force the government to either a)put doctors in places needed or b) pay for the transportation of these patients, we should all get behind the people who fly AF tasks and support them. If we don't, a ****load of nice people/kids are going to find medical help inaccessible, or as someone else put it, dangerously accessible (long road trips)
If we run a thread denigrating AF's efforts then the self effacing 'crats will help CASA shut it down. The only positive in that I see is a fat bonus for the 'crat that signs it off as a job well done.
Cheers
Jas
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Location Location!
Age: 46
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cost sharing on a private flight requires all participants to contribute equally
The Red Tape you refer to has as its intent, the safety of all people participating in aviation. It is, to a greater or lesser extent, necessary.
Where you get the two inferences you refer to is beyond me.
passenger can reasonably expect to survive a flight.
HACC buses are driven by accredited people
Not really sure what your definition argument regarding missions is about. The point remains that pilots (even lowly vfr ppls) are aware that they are sometimes under pressure from various sources to complete a flight (mission). Pilots are also acutely aware that the responsibility for the safety of that flight falls on them (notwithstanding the fact that it is also their own safety).
Private operations don't involve heroes, eh? Possibly the recipients of AF's may disagree. Didn't the inhabitants of some of the earthquake and hurricane affected areas in the northern hemisphere receive aid and mercy flights from private ops? If so, that also seems pretty heroic. IMO.
The seat brokering argument is just that...
Yes, clearly every private pilot who flies for his own business needs (who are as 'quasi-commercial' as AF) as well as AF are sliding down the slippery non-regulated pole of dooooooooom! :P
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Age: 51
Posts: 931
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Framer, single engine NVFR is not allowed by commercial flights.
Framer...dude!!! stick your head in a rule book!!!
Charter category.
Day VFR flight. PIC must hold an NFVR and aircraft legal for NVFR
Night VFR. PIC must hold CIR, and Aircraft duly maintained.
Jas
Sprucegoose
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Hughes Point, where life is great! Was also resident on page 13, but now I'm lost in Cyberspace....
Age: 59
Posts: 3,485
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
What book are you reading from? I would suggest it is a little more complicated than that!
Can you point me to a reference where it says single engine NVFR commercial operations (passenger) are legal, I must be missing something.
Can you point me to a reference where it says single engine NVFR commercial operations (passenger) are legal, I must be missing something.
Reading some of the comments on this thread, I get the feeling that CAO 40.2 is going to come as a complete surprise for some....
(This refers to NVFR - valid for private & aerial works only in SE aircraft)
(This refers to NVFR - valid for private & aerial works only in SE aircraft)
Last edited by outnabout; 24th Aug 2011 at 23:06. Reason: expanding information
OverFienD, you really have a problem reading & comprehending.
To repeat (again) the object of aviation regulation is safety. Clear enough? Yes, the error is yours.
A 200hr CPL in a charter show works within a framework of regulation and standards, so that the operation is as safe as can be reasonably acheived. There are CASA approved checks and balances designed to optimise safety for the travelling public. The same does not apply to this quasi-private/ commercial show where you may be putting unsuspecting passengers with pilots and aircraft that do not meet the same standards or have the same checks and balances as a charter operation. Do the passengers know this?
As previously explained, airline transport is the safest option. In GA, EMS is the safest, followed by charter, with private ops well behind.
Again as previously explained, where I come from HACC and other volunteers are accredited.
And yet again as previously explained, in Qld the Government DOES pay for these patients who do not qualify for RFDS, to be transported by airline (the PTS scheme).
Perhaps the passion and enthusiam of those supporting AF could be redirected into pushing their government into appropriately funding the health system to do the same.
To repeat (again) the object of aviation regulation is safety. Clear enough? Yes, the error is yours.
A 200hr CPL in a charter show works within a framework of regulation and standards, so that the operation is as safe as can be reasonably acheived. There are CASA approved checks and balances designed to optimise safety for the travelling public. The same does not apply to this quasi-private/ commercial show where you may be putting unsuspecting passengers with pilots and aircraft that do not meet the same standards or have the same checks and balances as a charter operation. Do the passengers know this?
As previously explained, airline transport is the safest option. In GA, EMS is the safest, followed by charter, with private ops well behind.
Again as previously explained, where I come from HACC and other volunteers are accredited.
And yet again as previously explained, in Qld the Government DOES pay for these patients who do not qualify for RFDS, to be transported by airline (the PTS scheme).
Perhaps the passion and enthusiam of those supporting AF could be redirected into pushing their government into appropriately funding the health system to do the same.
Sprucegoose
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Hughes Point, where life is great! Was also resident on page 13, but now I'm lost in Cyberspace....
Age: 59
Posts: 3,485
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Yes, clearly every private pilot who flies for his own business needs (who are as 'quasi-commercial' as AF) as well as AF are sliding down the slippery non-regulated pole of dooooooooom!
HH
I don't think you could be more wrong. A private flight with a supplier / customer or employee along as a passenger is far closer to a commercial operation than AF. And the pax potentially are less well informed. Angel Flight is pretty much a match making service. The passengers are given briefings beforehand by Angel Flight and they get some details on the pilot and aircraft beforehand, so they have some degree of an informed decision. The pilot who grabs an employee and says "c'mon mate we'll just fly here" has much less power in the equation.
But, you've also got to remember that the same goes for driving someone in a car. We don't get hung up about needing operation manuals to run someone down the road in a vehicle with unregulated servicing and a driver who has had no licence review since he / she was a spotty 18 year old.
How many different levels of safety regulation do we need? Why should this discussion be any different than if the pilots wife and daughter were on board?
This thread has largely devolved into a NVMC bashing discussion. Without getting into the merits of that debate, lets remember that there is no indication that this was a NVMC accident. It may be VFR to IMC, it may be pilot incapacitation, or it might have been an attack by aliens. One of our questions should be why it takes the ATSB a year to figure out which of these it is. I want to understand this and look for lessons way before then.
I don't think you could be more wrong. A private flight with a supplier / customer or employee along as a passenger is far closer to a commercial operation than AF. And the pax potentially are less well informed. Angel Flight is pretty much a match making service. The passengers are given briefings beforehand by Angel Flight and they get some details on the pilot and aircraft beforehand, so they have some degree of an informed decision. The pilot who grabs an employee and says "c'mon mate we'll just fly here" has much less power in the equation.
But, you've also got to remember that the same goes for driving someone in a car. We don't get hung up about needing operation manuals to run someone down the road in a vehicle with unregulated servicing and a driver who has had no licence review since he / she was a spotty 18 year old.
How many different levels of safety regulation do we need? Why should this discussion be any different than if the pilots wife and daughter were on board?
This thread has largely devolved into a NVMC bashing discussion. Without getting into the merits of that debate, lets remember that there is no indication that this was a NVMC accident. It may be VFR to IMC, it may be pilot incapacitation, or it might have been an attack by aliens. One of our questions should be why it takes the ATSB a year to figure out which of these it is. I want to understand this and look for lessons way before then.
Rossy
I have no argument with that, I actually didn't mention single engine ops, just single pilot ifr in response to someones suggestion that it could also be banned.
Jas24
heh heh good call , you're probably right, I look in the law books all the time but not the NVFR section. That said, it makes no difference to my argument at all.
My position is that the NVFR rating doesn't prepare the pilot for the conditions they will encounter. Simple. Do you think it does?
It should be scrapped or the 'time under the hood' required should be increased to achieve the same competancy levels that are achieved with an IFR rating. Don't worry about the nav so much (after all it is VFR) but equip the pilot with the skills to be able to deal with all the nasty illusions that come with flying in IMC ....because the reality is....sometimes they'l need that skill.
Thats all I'm saying.
Framer
Framer, single engine NVFR is not allowed by commercial flights.
Jas24
Framer...dude!!! stick your head in a rule book!!!
Charter category.
Day VFR flight. PIC must hold an NFVR and aircraft legal for NVFR
Night VFR. PIC must hold CIR, and Aircraft duly maintained.
Jas
Charter category.
Day VFR flight. PIC must hold an NFVR and aircraft legal for NVFR
Night VFR. PIC must hold CIR, and Aircraft duly maintained.
Jas
My position is that the NVFR rating doesn't prepare the pilot for the conditions they will encounter. Simple. Do you think it does?
It should be scrapped or the 'time under the hood' required should be increased to achieve the same competancy levels that are achieved with an IFR rating. Don't worry about the nav so much (after all it is VFR) but equip the pilot with the skills to be able to deal with all the nasty illusions that come with flying in IMC ....because the reality is....sometimes they'l need that skill.
Thats all I'm saying.
Framer
Sprucegoose
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Hughes Point, where life is great! Was also resident on page 13, but now I'm lost in Cyberspace....
Age: 59
Posts: 3,485
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I don't think you could be more wrong. A private flight with a supplier / customer or employee along as a passenger is far closer to a commercial operation than AF
The passengers are given briefings beforehand by Angel Flight and they get some details on the pilot and aircraft beforehand, so they have some degree of an informed decision.
From where I sit there seems to be a large discrepancy in the type of equipment, pilot qualifications and operating procedures. Why set the bar so low? I don't think raising the minimums would have any effect on their ability to deliver the service.
Why not strive for a higher level of service delivery rather than accept the minimum? Just because it is a private operation why not operate to a higher standard? Where I work all our flights are technically 'air work', but maintenance, aircraft equipment and training are operated to an RPT equivilent standard.
HH
Does the "low bar" that you complain about apply to the ABC chopper? Or the 206 at Lake Eyre. Or the 210 at Kunnunurra? At the moment there is no evidence that the Cherokee 180 that crashed near Nhill was any less well maintained, or the pilot any less diligent. Indeed, while its unlikely, the aeroplane might even be in the charter category for all we know. Instead, there is just a lot of finger pointing because the pilot was a private pilot and not possessing the elevated status of CPL or ATPL.
And why should a small not-for-profit be setting itself up as knowing better than CASA? Why do you think my family's life is worth less than someone I meet through Angel Flight? If you think the PPL standards are too low, then lets argue that case. If you think Airwork maintenance standards are too low, then lets argue that case. And if there is a good argument for either, then let's take it to CASA.
I presume you have never sen the information pack that goers to Angel Flight passengers? Or have awareness of the screening system to confirm that the passengers are fit to fly? Or potentially even the emails and flight briefing sheets that go to passengers, pilots & ground crew? Have you experienced how Angel Flight deals with a Pilot cancelling a trip (which is excellent by the way)?
I stand by my argument that an angel Flight passenger is in a better position to make a judgement about whether or not to fly with me that one of my clients or employees who decides to fly with me on a business trip. If for no other reason than the balance of power is more even. Angel Flight is an introduction service, not a scheduled service, not a charter. I cancelled an Angel Flight today because I'm getting the flu. If it was a private / business flight I might still do it, I'm not yet unfit to fly. But there is a whole different imperative. A friend flew to a regional town to pick up a passenger, got there but didn't like the weather he flew through and so cancelled the Angel Flight with about 30 min notice. That flexibility doesn't exist with charter and rightly or wrongly is less likely to exist on private / business flights.
Does the "low bar" that you complain about apply to the ABC chopper? Or the 206 at Lake Eyre. Or the 210 at Kunnunurra? At the moment there is no evidence that the Cherokee 180 that crashed near Nhill was any less well maintained, or the pilot any less diligent. Indeed, while its unlikely, the aeroplane might even be in the charter category for all we know. Instead, there is just a lot of finger pointing because the pilot was a private pilot and not possessing the elevated status of CPL or ATPL.
And why should a small not-for-profit be setting itself up as knowing better than CASA? Why do you think my family's life is worth less than someone I meet through Angel Flight? If you think the PPL standards are too low, then lets argue that case. If you think Airwork maintenance standards are too low, then lets argue that case. And if there is a good argument for either, then let's take it to CASA.
I presume you have never sen the information pack that goers to Angel Flight passengers? Or have awareness of the screening system to confirm that the passengers are fit to fly? Or potentially even the emails and flight briefing sheets that go to passengers, pilots & ground crew? Have you experienced how Angel Flight deals with a Pilot cancelling a trip (which is excellent by the way)?
I stand by my argument that an angel Flight passenger is in a better position to make a judgement about whether or not to fly with me that one of my clients or employees who decides to fly with me on a business trip. If for no other reason than the balance of power is more even. Angel Flight is an introduction service, not a scheduled service, not a charter. I cancelled an Angel Flight today because I'm getting the flu. If it was a private / business flight I might still do it, I'm not yet unfit to fly. But there is a whole different imperative. A friend flew to a regional town to pick up a passenger, got there but didn't like the weather he flew through and so cancelled the Angel Flight with about 30 min notice. That flexibility doesn't exist with charter and rightly or wrongly is less likely to exist on private / business flights.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Still in Paradise
Age: 60
Posts: 861
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Akro, I think you have some valid points, as do HH and Al and some other posters who have remained objective. Therein lay the crux of the issue being debated - objectivity.
While you and someone like HH who works in this role all day can make a smart and objective go/ no-go decision , does the same apply to all the AF pilots across the the wide range of experience and training that their website demonstrates? The rate of fatal crashes in PVT ops vs CHTR and RPT seems to indicate not.
Once the emotion is taken out an objective review may find that perhaps tighter operational management, regulatory oversight and higher minimum standards would make for a safer operation. Perhaps not.
While you and someone like HH who works in this role all day can make a smart and objective go/ no-go decision , does the same apply to all the AF pilots across the the wide range of experience and training that their website demonstrates? The rate of fatal crashes in PVT ops vs CHTR and RPT seems to indicate not.
Once the emotion is taken out an objective review may find that perhaps tighter operational management, regulatory oversight and higher minimum standards would make for a safer operation. Perhaps not.
Jamair
I can't disagree with you. My only point would be that I think I'd go with the judgement of a 66 YO 800 hour PPL who owns an aeroplane before most of the mass produced 21YO training factory CPL's who are the main fodder for charter ops.
Furthermore, I reckon my light twin is better equipped and better maintained than any of the (charter ops) twins I used to hire.
HH has a valid point of view, I just think he's overlooking the huge overlap between private & commercial ops. I'll concede that the best commercial ops are probably better than the best private ops. But I'm not sure that the worst commercial ops are any better than the worst private ops.
I can't disagree with you. My only point would be that I think I'd go with the judgement of a 66 YO 800 hour PPL who owns an aeroplane before most of the mass produced 21YO training factory CPL's who are the main fodder for charter ops.
Furthermore, I reckon my light twin is better equipped and better maintained than any of the (charter ops) twins I used to hire.
HH has a valid point of view, I just think he's overlooking the huge overlap between private & commercial ops. I'll concede that the best commercial ops are probably better than the best private ops. But I'm not sure that the worst commercial ops are any better than the worst private ops.
While you and someone like HH who works in this role all day can make a smart and objective go/ no-go decision , does the same apply to all the AF pilots across the the wide range of experience and training that their website demonstrates?
My only point would be that I think I'd go with the judgement of a 66 YO 800 hour PPL who owns an aeroplane before most of the mass produced 21YO training factory CPL's who are the main fodder for charter ops.
The rate of fatal crashes in PVT ops vs CHTR and RPT seems to indicate not.
Some of the ppl's may have had decades of experience making tough decisions where the consequences were tangible and serious. In adition, they may have spent a lot of their spare time reading aviation incident reports which adds to their understanding of how certain things play out. Alternatively, they may have very little experience in decision making followed by 'wearing the consequences,' and never read anything aviation related after their licence obligations were fulfilled. It really is a mixed bag.The worst offenders in my opinion being the chaps who buy an aircraft because it satisfies their ego, not because they are passionate about aviation.
With the commercial pilots, they generally have constant exposure to the environment. They're immersed in it in most cases. They can spend 40-60 hours a week living breathing reading socialising flying. I think that plays in their favour. It's sort of like an 'industry currency'.
I know I'l get responses detailing how incredibly dedicated and knowledgable some ppls are. I know that, especially if they are on this site. I'm not disputing that, just saying that the consistancy in decision making skills is not as great in that group, simply because it doesn't have to be and we're human, which brings me back to the NVFR rating, all that does is make the decision harder for them.Make it easy, if it's gunna get dark, stay on the ground or get an ifr rating.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My opinion is that it will vary from pilot to pilot but on the whole, there will be more ppl's that get out of their depth when it comes to these decisions. Experience is the difference.
Have you read the Angel Flight pilot profiles? There are a lot of ex CPL's etc on there that are now just lowly PPL's as people are describing. A PPL doesn't mean you have a tendency to easily go out of your depth and make poor decisions. I know many a PPL that I'd rather fly with than a snotty nosed 200 hour pilot that doesn't know ****.
Would a 20 year old 200 hour CPL have better judgement than a 700 hour 50 year old?