Truss: Aviation Safety Regulation Review

[Sarcs]

'Plight of the Angels' - Former heavyweight weighs in.

Although the potential Angel Flight embuggerance, instigated by our big "R" regulator, has slid slightly to the edge of the radar it is still very much a political hot potato for the Wuss & his minions... Example - Scott Lobbies For Angel Flight:

Member for Maranoa Bruce Scott says the Federal Government is all about “removing red tape” rather than creating “onerous obstacles” for charity organisations such as Angel Flight.

Angel Flight CEO Bill Bristow recently criticised a Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) discussion paper that suggested the charity group should be included under a new aviation organisation which would approve pilots and aircraft types, and monitor safety standards.

“There has been no demonstrated safety issue arising out of Angel Flight’s already greater than 16,500 missions and therefore the ‘safety authority’ appears to be introducing … bureaucratic intervention which does not appear to us to have any foundation,” Mr Bristow told The Australian newspaper.

Mr Scott said today he had made urgent representations to the Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss to ensure Angel Flight, “a well-respected and admired community organisation”, could continue its work.

“Angel Flight does outstanding work across Australia with its volunteers, including the pilots, giving their time and resources so country people with health issues – who are under financial hardship – can obtain the treatment they need,” Mr Scott said.

“The Liberal National Coalition Government is all about removing red tape and cutting regulations that place unreasonable burdens on businesses and community organisations.

“We are not in favour of creating onerous obstacles where none are needed.

“CASA is responsible for ensuring the safe operation of civil aircraft and that objective will not be compromised.

“From time to time, CASA issues discussion papers when it’s considering options to revise regulatory measures. The purpose of discussion papers is to ensure that options being considered are the best available before beginning any new rule making procedures.

“The government has recently completed a major review of CASA and will shortly respond to its major recommendations.

“The government is also in the process of appointing new CASA board members and a new CEO.”

Angel Flight co-ordinates non-emergency flights from volunteer pilots to transport patients from rural areas to hospital.

Today is the last day to show support for Angel Flight through the FF DP1317OS. All you have to do is answer - not acceptable under any circumstances (here) - to all available options...

Now if you are after inspiration to pass comment/condemnation.... perhaps some of the following replies to the AA article may help - Angel Flight anger over proposed CASA changes

Frank says:

Another example of just how out of touch CASA is would be a sad day for the community if licensed people decided it was too tiresome to volunteer their time. Disgraceful!

Fred says:

This is ridiculous.
CASA is the regulatory body that is supposed to ensure private pilots are competent and safe upon issuance of their licence and ensures that the individual pilot maintains, at least legally, some proficiency by regular flight reviews, etc. By imposing this “ASAAO” upon Angel Flight, CASA is really just struggling to admit that their own ability to regulate private operations is either ineffective or that they are under resourced and can’t meet the regulatory demand.

Angel Flight operations are regular private flights and carry no greater risk to the passengers than any non-Angel Flight organised trip. An individual pilot making poor operational decisions under the banner of Angel Flight should be reprimanded by CASA directly. An Angel Flight pilot is never under any pressure to complete a “mission”. In fact, they are encouraged to give up their mission if there is any doubt as to the conditions and the pilot’s ability. A pilot is always purely a volunteer, operating privately. The Angel Flight organisation should never be held responsible for the individual’s decision.

As far as I understand, why should one of the most well-meaning and effective charities in Australia take on the regulatory responsibility of a government-funded department?

Joanna van der Drift says:

To place the responsibility of all of that onto to provider is ridiculous. A licence to fly comes with obligations, owning and running an aircarft comes with obligations and registration is subject to the plane being fit to fly. Why bring into the equation another body to be rsponsible for this as well?

Scott says:

A beheamonth of a beauracracy thats totally out of touch with GA and recreational flying and desperate to over-regulate to death, those with the least resources, therefore creating safety issues for CASA to resolve and regulate with glee. Without the “burden” of GA, CASA would only have to regulate several hundred jet aircraft with the huge resources it currently wastes at tax payers expense. Why any private flight below 1200kg needs to hold a Class 2 Medical, and often redundant ASIC for a bit of recreational flying and the odd Angel Flight is unintelligent. 20 years ago we had CASA grounding light aircraft operators for having undersized rego letters, henious safety issue that it was, seems not much has changed at the retirement factory for those who couldn’t make it in the real world of proffit and loss…!

Or you could refer to the following leaked response to the DP from the former CAsA boss Mick Toller...:

Ex-CASA chief blasts Angel Flight curbs

FORMER Civil Aviation Safety Authority boss Mick Toller has slammed as unnecessary and unfounded a proposal to more tightly regulate community service organisations such as Angel Flight.

In a submission obtained by The Australian, Mr Toller told CASA there was no evidence or solid data in a discussion paper *released by the authority suggesting there were problems with *operations in the community *service sector.

“The discussion paper states that there are identified safety concerns regarding varying pilot qualifications and experience levels as well as aircraft certification and maintenance standards,’’ he said. “No examples of these identified concerns are given.’’

Mr Toller is among the Angel Flight volunteers lining up to support the group, which has also received support from local authorities and patients potentially affected by any move by CASA to increase regulation.
He headed CASA when Angel Flight was set up in 2003 and gave the organisation the green light to start operations co-ordinating non-emergency flights for needy patients, relatives and carers. It now has about 2600 pilots on its register and has helped more than 2500 people across the country.

CASA has emphasised that it may not proceed with any changes that would affect Angel Flight, but its decision to specify a preferred option in its discussion paper has alarmed the organisation’s management and volunteers.

Its preferred option would see an organisation set up to assess and authorise pilots, require proficiency checks and assessments and approve aircraft types. It *argues it could monitor safety standards under the system without imposing undue regulatory burdens such as an air operator’s certificate.

The authority subsequently rejected claims it was moving to shut down community service flights, but said it made no apologies for canvassing safety issues.

Other options in its paper include taking no action at all, *special passenger briefings on community service flights, additional pilot training, a volunteer registration system and operations under an air operator’s certificate.
The authority this week reiterated its stance that no decision had been made and it would consider all responses to the discussion paper before deciding what, or if, further action was appropriate.

“If any changes to the current safety management of community service flights are to be proposed these will be subject to full consultation with all stakeholders,’’ a spokesman said.

“Currently community service flights are considered to be private flights and the safety rules do not take into account the special characteristics of these operations.’’

But Mr Toller noted in his submission that Angel Flight policy already required pilots to have 250 hours experience, in excess of the requirements for a commercial *pilots’ licence, and their aircraft have a valid airworthiness certificate and current maintenance release. “It is not possible to impose a greater requirement than a valid certificate of airworthiness and current maintenance release on any operation,’’ he said.

“The question therefore has to be asked — what problem are you trying to solve?

“Neither is there a lack of transparency regarding choice of aircraft or pilot as alleged.

“What does not seem to be clearly understood by CASA is that Angel Flight and any future similar organisation is a facilitator, not an operator. It links people who elect to fly rather than travel by car, bus or train, if the option is available, with pilots keen to offer their time to assist.

“As such each flight is a normal private flight subject to the rules, regulations and requirements imposed on all private flights.’’
Mr Toller said CASA’s proposal would add a unique classification of operations not existing anywhere else in the world.

He said this was contrary to the policy of harmonisation that had been at the core of all regulatory reform and underpinned the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations.

A simple solution that endorsed the current safety levels and precluded any newcomer operating at a minimum standard would be to require a memorandum of understanding with each charity based “on the current proven standards that have served the community well”. He added: “We are talking about private operations, operated in accordance with all CASA rules and regulations, with additional safeguards required by the charity.”

Hmm...interesting comments from MT???

MTF...