Well said Cleared. I am not arguing about CASAs response. i am simply saying that the emotional imperative behind CSFs are different from purely private operations and the associated risks have to be managed and according to you, Angel Flight is aware of this and has procedures in place.
To put it another way, the argument that no money changes hands so the operation is identical to taking your kids for the proverbial $100 hamburger lunch doesn’t wash.
I agree with you that CASAs response - the engine strictures, is pointlesss and destructive. It could be said that the CASA response is perhaps as emotionally loaded as my example pilot. Everyone, including CASA, wants to help the unfortunate. It’s just for a well meaning CASA , the answer to all problems is more regulation.
Clintons argument about road risks is also correct. Being cynical again, it could be said that the lawyers in CASA couldn’t care less about Angel Flight customers, just so long as they don’t get killed in an air crash. If they die on the roads that’s not CASAs problem.