CASA now wants to control community flights what next
Thread Starter
CASA now wants to control community flights what next
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
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
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.
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.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!!
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!!
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Skipton
Age: 19
Posts: 173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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
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
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Oz
Posts: 331
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
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.
Thread Starter
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?
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?
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?
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?
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
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
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Sydney NSW Australia
Posts: 3,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
in an aircraft they know nothing about assess the risk of such a venture? They can't.
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.
I guess when people are killed using these services they'd at least want to have a look at it?
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...-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?
----- then how is it that CASA can produce a scant document without any numerate analysis of accident rates and argue for increased regulation?
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!!
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!
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!
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.
- 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.