CARRIAGE of DISABLE PERSON in LIGHT AIRCRAFT

[Valdiviano]

Need info!!
CAO 20.16.3 15
Does this mean that a disable person is NOT allowed in a 4/6 seater charter/commercial joy flight???
I need this info to fight local council re providing disable facilities.
Any info, precedents, suggestions appreciated.

[Mail-man]

My interpretation is it's all good as long as they are in the seat most away fm an exit. eg re back of a 210 or rear left of BE58. Also probably something in the ops manual, re briefing and means of identifying handicapped persons.
15 Carriage of handicapped persons
15.1 When handicapped persons are carried in an aircraft all reasonable precautions
shall be taken to prevent hazards to other occupants.
15.2 The carriage of handicapped persons in regular public transport or charter
operations shall be in accordance with the following requirements:
(a) the operator shall establish procedures which will identify as far as
possible passengers who are handicapped;
(b) the operator shall ensure that handicapped persons are not seated in an
aircraft where they could in any way obstruct or hinder access to any
emergency exit by other persons on the aircraft;
(c) the operator shall ensure that individual briefings on emergency
procedures are given in accordance with the requirements of section
20.11.
.

[Valdiviano]

I was told, NOT allowed, due to, no flight attendant to assist in an emergency.
Please correct me if this is wrong.
Scenario: C182, handicapped person is seated r/h/rear, able pax seated l/h rear, crash landing, l/h door unabled to be opened, handicapped person is NOW blocking r/h door exit for the person seated l/h rear.
I know i am splitting hairs, but todays world is different, from the practical good old days

[kalavo]

I was told, NOT allowed, due to, no flight attendant to assist in an emergency.Would love a reference... don't see that written any where and especially not in that paragraph (and if it's not written in the Regs it probably isn't worth the paper it's written on).

As Pilot's we tend to think of the CARs, CAOs, etc. as the only legislation that exists. But you've mentioned you're fighting council on this issue, this would not involve the CARs, but more likely involve the Disability Discrimination Act. ie by not providing a ramp, you are discriminating against a disabled person (regardless of whether or not they are intending to fly... they could be coming to see a family member off on a charter or joy flight).

I don't see anything in that CAO, any other CAOs or CARs preventing a disabled person from flying in a 182, Baron or any other aircraft. You do however have a Duty of Care and an obligcation under the CAOs to ensure that other passengers are not prevented from using an emergency exit because of where you have sat that person.

In the scenario you provide, the disabled person is not blocking the primary exit of the Left Rear passenger, so I believe under the CAO you have fulfilled your obligation (heck if the Left door was blocked and the aircraft is on fire, I'm sure I could get out even with the other three passengers incapacitated!) By offloading the passenger because of the above reason, you're really toying with the Disability Discrimination Act...

Prosecution for breaking the DDA when everyone is alive and able to argue it out in court is far more likely, than someone's family trying to sue you because their family member couldn't get out, using the CAOs (which are only Orders not an Act or Regulations) when it'd be your word against (at worst) one other surviving passenger and you could easily argue that you left their Primary exit clear and had no other option if all four passengers were going to be on the flight... it is after all a light aircraft.

Sorry mate, I think the council is going to win this one.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/dda1992264/s23.html

...you might be able to get away with offloading arguing that as a charter company you're a private not a public carrier and hence have the right to refuse any charter. But you can't keep them out of the office with that arguement.

[Valdiviano]

Thanks Kavalo
The type of answer I needed, FACTS.
As I propose to operate from an existing, old facility. Could I argue 2b on Sec 23, unjustifiable hardship, ie cost of complaying (ramps, toilets,etc) against profits expected from very small operation?

[kalavo]

Have to put on the "I'm not a lawyer hat" :)

Unjustifiable hardship is back in Section 11 of the act..
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/dda1992264/s11.html

Certainly looks like it could be a stalling tactic with the council. ie "We're just trying to get the business off the ground, based on experience working for other operators we don't believe it's likely we'll have any disabled persons booking a charter or joy flight in the next 12 months. We recognise and respect our responsibility under the DDA, but at the current time the benefit versus the expenditure required we believe would constitute unjustifiable hardship. We realise this is an issue that needs to be addressed as soon as possible and expect to bring our facilities up to standard within 12 months."

Might buy you a bit of time, but be prepared to have solved the problem in the timeframe you specify as I suspect they'll be much nastier next time?

It says there you have to come up with an action plan, but I believe that's only if a disabled person makes a complaint against you? Really don't know mate, sorry. All you can really do is try being reasonable with the council and hope they're reasonable back.

[Sunfish]

What's stopping you from providing your own facilities? A ramp is easily built out of yellow tongue flooring and you can always provide a commode chair.

Once your business is running, then get your pax to complain officially under the DDA.

[bluesky300]

I would suggest that the Act only precludes actual discrimination; only if there is an actual disabled person who is unable to access your premises, then there may be an issue (in which case you would argue the impracticable exemption).