Skydiving to become RPT

[the_regulators]

It has been decided that all skydiving operations conducted within Australia will be an RPT operation. This will be implemented as early as January 2007.
Selling seats to the public on scheduled services requires that a passenger intending to skydive be afforded the same levels of safety as any other passenger on a scheduled service.
We sincerley hope to avoid any future tradegy in Australia.
This will be a long overdue tidy up and recognises the failure of the industry associations to self regulate.

[Shitsu_Tonka]

Halluncinatory Drugs are obviously far too cheap.

[Ultralights]

or another way to lock up more airfields in the security bull****e blanket.

[Runaway Gun]

Does this mean RPT operators will save on landing fees, by issuing their pax parachutes, so they can simply throw them out overhead their respective destinations? :{

[Creampuff]

What is your source for this statement?

[Captain Starlight]

Cream Puff,
surely you recognise a cynical windup here?

besides, you and I know that RPT is between fixed terminals on a fixed schedule, available to the public generally.

These passengers aren't being taken to another fixed terminal, they don't even usually fly back to the departure point.

There's no point A to point B or point C when they buy a ticket, come to think of it, they don't even buy a ticket, they join a club,
so it's not even available to the public generally.

Generally, they are invited to just jump out in a designated area.

However, the fact that the aircraft is used for financial reward or gain,
and that this involves the carriage of passengers (ticketed or unticketed)
would possibly imply that it is aerial work
and maybe should be conducted under an AOC of sorts,

but only if there is any substantive evidence that the industry is not really self regulating as intended.

[Creampuff]

If it's for reward it's charter, it must be authorised by a charter category AOC, and it must be covered by carrier's liability insurance.

[Torres]

You forgot "over specified routes" Captain Starlight. :E

Or is this week's OLC interpretation different. Again! :ugh:

[Aussie]

Where is this information coming from...?

Just another wind up! :ugh:

Aussie

[the_regulators]

Those quoting the current regs "Well Done"
However is seems the point has been missed:
The current regs can and will be amended

[Lefthanded_Rock_Thrower]

It is baffling how many people here have no idea on the contents of CASA Regulations.

There have been bigger fish to fry on the CAR 206, RPT front, which i am sure Creampuff and Torres will no doubt tell you about if you care to ask.

Regulator, wow, a new login already, but still pushing the same effluent filled wheel barrow, good luck.

[bushy]

If the flight has been pre-arranged (ie booked the day before) then it is a scheduled flight. The courts have so ruled. So most of the skydiving outfits and most of the charter companies all over the country are operating scheduled flights every day. I have observed one "organisaation" operating what really is RPT in single engine piston engined aircraft for years. Sure they may have different pieces of paper, with different words written on them, but that does not change the facts.

I once commented to a senior CASA person that they could put any company out of business any time they like. He agreed with me.

The rules are innappropriate, indefinite, unworkable without lots of imagination, and appear to be a tool that CASA use to commercially regulate the industry. To the detriment of those living in the outback.

If you study the Phelan papers (or make your own study) you will see how this is often used to prosecute.The indefinite nature of the rules, is a source of worry to most operators.

There is no safety reason why small aircraft should not run scheduled services anyway. It is only restricted to prevent them from competing commercially with the bigger ones. All that is needed is to call them "light aircraft services" so the public knows. It is only CASA that pretends we all fly Boeings.

All this jiggery pokery is one of the reasons that the industry has little respect for the regulator.

[chimbu warrior]

I reckon parachuting should be covered under the aerial agricultural regs..........take up a load, drop over specified paddock, land, reload, repeat performance.

RPT? I think not.

[Creampuff]

the regulators: As an act of purest optimism, I will give you one more chance to distinguish yourself from the loonies. Where is your evidence that the rules are going to be amended so as to make parachute ops RPT? Do you have a link to some draft rules? A link to minutes of meeting of an SCC meeting at which this proposal was mooted?

[Contract Con]

Nice one Chimbu:D

May be the best fit yet!

Cheers,

Con:ok:

[ratso]

the regulator
what did you eat for tea .....dreamt it up did you.

[justvisual]

All I know is that after all these years of flying, I want ID 90, business class and all the other stuff that goes with RPT. If not I am not going skydiving....!