Community service flights new rules

[Peter Pan Pan]

The summary of proposed changes (https://consultation.casa.gov.au/regulatory-program/copy-of-cd1804os-1-1/) on the CASA consultation hub makes for interesting reading.

If your private category piston aircraft engine isn't maintained to AD/ENG/4 charter standards then you will be disqualified from conducting angel flights under the proposed rules. Your engine may have plenty of hours to run to TBO, but if it's on condition due to calendar life it will not comply.

Given that this is probably 30-40% of all PVT category aircraft in the Australian GA fleet the impact will be substantial. What's the safety gain? Is there any data on engine reliability comparing overall hours vs calendar age to inform this kind of mandate?
If you haven't made a submission.. do it now.

PPP

[LeadSled]

The summary of proposed changes (https://consultation.casa.gov.au/regulatory-program/copy-of-cd1804os-1-1/) on the CASA consultation hub makes for interesting reading.

If you haven't made a submission.. do it now.

PPP

Folks,
On a quick reading, the "justifications" are long on assertions, and very short on facts, let alone a properly detailed description of the risks, and how the proposals will mitigate those risks, let alone a cost/benefit justification of the proposal.
In short, the result is that more will suffer, some will die, but because it will not be in an aeroplane, CASA will be able to sit back and say: "Safety is our first priority".
Tootle pip!!

[mostlytossas]

One of the main deterrents the conducting these flights will be no NVFR allowed,especially in the winter months. Once you get west of the Blue mountains few private pilots hold an IFR rating as the weather is just not bad enough on average to justify the cost. Also west of the Blue Mountains most of the flights are all day affairs, as to take someone to the city for an appointment,wait until they are ready to return then get them home again,it is usual to run out of daylight on the way home. Few pilots would bother with the hassle or be able to get enough time off work etc to overnight, not to mention the cost, so will withdraw from the service.
This doesn't take into account the stupid decision in the first place. Someone at CASA has decided NVFR is too risky. I call BS on that having flown NVFR for 30 odd years. So long as you stick to the rules such as weather minimums, lowest safe,fuel reserves for alternates etc, NVFR is quite safe. In fact IMHO what is more risky is single pilot IFR op's in clapped out equiptment in poor weather with the pressure to get the job done so to turn a profit.
Very few NVFR flight turn into disaster. The ones that do invariably are not NVFR pilots at all but day VFR pilots that get stuck after dark by pressing on.
Like to know the real stats too comparing IFR flights v genuine NVFR in night time crashes as there has been quite a few of those I could list.

[chimbu warrior]

Perhaps some of the very experienced pilots could run mentoring programs or something?

The restrictions apply to the PIC, but I don't see why low-time pilots could not conduct the flights as PIC under supervision of an experienced pilot. It certainly lowers the available payload, but might be away to enable the well intentioned volunteers to continue their good deeds.

Unfortunately it also demonstrates how little the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development cares about-

infrastructure - if the government cared more about infrastructure outside capital cities, there would be far less need for such flights;
transport - if Australia cared more about aviation they would seek to foster such flights;
regional development - unless it is a marginal seat on the city fringe, it is "fly-over" (at FL350 in business class) territory for politicians.

[Squawk7700]

I had what I thought was a good read of it.

What are the main points of concern? The no NVFR?

[LeadSled]

I had what I thought was a good read of it.
What are the main points of concern? The no NVFR?

Squark7700
The main point of concern is that it exists at all --- it is a solution looking for a problem.

Many people who use/would have used this form of transport for such as dialysis, chemo treatment and similar vital but non-emergency treatment will forced to use other forms of transport ---- because places of treatment are few and far between, once you are beyond the major coastal and several inland cities.

Injury, suffering and death is no concern of CASA, as long as an aeroplane/helicopter is not involved.

But CASA will be happy to see the service severely contract or collapse ---- Because "safety is our first priority".

Tootle pip!!

PS: I hope you remember the CASA proposal, some time back, that any emergency services helicopters would only be able to land at certified or registered aerodromes --- and only if they had current NOTAMS and a TAF.

[Squawk7700]

They have clearly done this in response to an incident / accident. On the face of it, the requirements seem fairly reasonable and are arguably minimal. Remember we’re expecting aviation uninformed passengers to hop onboard and aircraft flown by a PPL whom they don’t know from a bar of soap.

It was only a matter of time after the fatalities that this was going to happen.

The NVFR one is an interesting one admittedly. I know a few pilots I would let my family travel with in the dark, but some I definitely wouldn’t.

[YPJT]

Does Angel Flight allow NVFR with the passengers? I have positioned prior to or after the flight by myself NVFR but never with the passengers on board.
The Victorian tragedy sent shivers down my spine at the time and I am surprised CASA didn't jump on this sooner.

[LeadSled]

Does Angel Flight allow NVFR with the passengers? I have positioned prior to or after the flight by myself NVFR but never with the passengers on board.
The Victorian tragedy sent shivers down my spine at the time and I am surprised CASA didn't jump on this sooner.

Folks,
On the basis of some of the logic here, why not extend the proposal to ALL PRIVATE FLYING, except for the pilot of the aircraft and other pilots, who could reasonably be expected to understand the risk of being a passenger in a light aircraft versus an A-380.

After all, some years ago, CASA proposed a "PRIVATE OPERATIONS AOC", which was to be required for all operations except the carriage of the "immediate family" of the owner/pilot.

Just extend the "ONE STANDARD OF SAFETY" one step further down the food chain than "charter" (Part 135)

After all, SAFETY IS OUR FIRST PRIORITY, forget practicality, common sense, precedent and the right of people to take charge of their own lives. After all, it is well recognised that the greatest contribution to "more safety" is more bureaucracy ---- isn't it??

I know, from real world experience, that people getting into a C206 know it is an NOT airline aircraft. The balance of risk and consequences is meaningless if you demand that the only outcome, aviationwise, is zero death or injury. That is NOT risk management.

One of the things I have battled for years is the dumb bxxxxrds who want to ban two kids in one seat, based on a ridiculous pommy analysis that in turbulence they could clap head, despite the fact that, from the very first Flying Doctor flight with Fred McKay and Arthur Affleck, we have carried two kids in one seat, and there has never been a consequential injury. A while ago now, two of us in two C-182s evacuated a whole bunch of kids from one of the Cape Missions to hospital in Cairns (the other was Tony Mathews --- many of you will remember the Flying Parson from Normanton) during a raging flue epidemic. Would it have been "safer" to get those kids to medical attention days later??

How many would have died --- but not on an aircraft.

Tootle pip!!

[machtuk]

I'm not a fan of this sort of thing as much as the intention is well meaning. What price do we put on risk?
There are well established organizations that do aeromedical work in at times a very challenging environment, this is no place for Pvt pilots or even more advanced pilots to be when there would be a level of 'pressure' on the pilot to complete the task.
The biggest trouble is pilots always tend to overestimate their abilities especially in the decision making process!
The planes themselves are not the real issue, CASA have it all wrong in that area.
I would never put one of my family members on one of these flights, too risky, but that's just me!

[mostlytossas]

No they do not. Passenger carrying VFR flights are allowed by day ONLY. In some cases a pilot might decide to return home by NVFR after delivering passengers. In which case it’s not a community service flight. It’s a non issue but it’s not a bad thing that CASA have now put it in writing for all CSF’s..
How about when the flight is all done on the same flightplan ( drop off passengers then return home NVFR ) and the landing fee/s exemption etc is claimed as is fair enough. Would that entire flight be deemed a CSF ?
If you make it too hard pilots will simply walk away. They are volunteers after all. Angel flight tells it's clients requesting a flight that it is a private flight usually in single engine aircraft. See their website. So if clients want to take advantage of the service fair enough they know the risks.
That said, the risks are overstated in my opinion. Little different to catching a lift with an unknown driver on country roads at speed for long periods at a time.
We need to get away from this notion that flying is unsafe. Essentially it is safe! As with surface transport the bigger the vehicle the safer it is, ie trains safer than cars so too 4 engine jets safer than twin piston aircraft etc. But that doesn't make cars or single engine aircraft unsafe just not as safe. As stated above poor decision making is the issue here,not the aircraft. As also stated above CASA has the solution looking for a problem!

[Clinton McKenzie]

Here’s what I said about the issue of “community service flights” in my (published) submission to the review of Avmed:A related and relevant point was made in the Canberra Aero Club’s submission in response to DP 1317OS – “Safety standards for community service flights conducted on a voluntary basis”. CASA’s response to a fatal accident during a community service flight was to propose, among other things, an increase in the standards and regulatory approvals required to engage in those operations. But the only rational way to decide whether to increase those standards and requirements and, if so, to what, was to determine the opportunity cost to society of the increase.

CASA could set the standards such that community service flights must be conducted only in transport category aircraft, to and from airports equipped with CATIIIC ILSs. When carried at that standard, passengers would be, comparatively, extraordinarily safe. However, the operation would be very costly and the flights would be inaccessible or useless to most of the population. Some of the vast majority of the people who miss out may be unable to access the required medical treatment to which they would otherwise have access, and die of their condition, or may die in a road accident trying to get to that treatment.

CASA could instead set the standards such that community service flights may be conducted in ultralights powered by motor mower engines, to and from any convenient paddock. At that standard the service would be, comparatively, very cheap and accessible to the vast majority of the population, but there would be many more accidents than if the standards were set at the other end of the spectrum.

The only rational way to decide where within that spectrum to set the standards is to consider, among other things, objective cost/benefit data across that spectrum. But CASA does not have or consider that data, and is not competent to make decisions about it, even if it had the data. Decisions about and balancing the risks to which society will be exposed, what counts as benefits to society and what price is considered reasonable for society to pay for those benefits, are essentially political decisions. That is why the aviation classification of operations regime in Australia continues to be a muddy mess, around 20 years after Commissioner Staunton recommended an “urgent” review of one of the fundamental definitions within that regime. That is also why the flight and duty time rules have been in a state of flux for even longer.

Therefore, it is not enough for CASA to say that an increase in medical-related incapacitation is, of itself, justification for CASA to continue to conduct general aviation medical certification, even if there were overwhelming evidence that there would be an increase [which evidence does not exist]. The benefits have to be ascertained and weighed as well. As I recall the actual submission also referred to the nonsensical idea that a person would be prohibited from being exposed to risks, when on a ‘community service flight’, to which risks the person would be permitted and could choose to be exposed when flying ‘for fun’. Pilot: Josephine, I can take you and your son on a private NVFR flight from A to B for fun, but I can’t take you on a private NVFR flight from A to B if you are going to B to take your son for a medical test. Apparently the difference makes the latter flight “dangerous”.

And I see the good ol’ let’s-pull-it-apart-to-find-out-why-it’s-working-so-well cancer can never be killed.But why would any private owner pull a perfectly running low time engine to pieces, when all of the vital signs like oil analysis, borescope compressions are perfect? Makes no sense at all. Requirement 2 is sensible for charter operators who thrash their high time 40 year old hacks to death. CASA seem to be acknowledging that CSF’s are Private operations... so why arent Schecule 5 and AD/ENG/4 Requirement 1 good enough? Many CSFs currently take place using these standards.... and NONE of the problems have been remotely linked to maintenance standards for private aircraft.Well said, Cleared. But I disagree on one point: Requirement 2 isn’t even sensible for charter operators who know how to run their engines properly and do so, supported by evidence from monitoring “vital signs like oil analysis, borescope compressions”.

Overhauling or replacing a well-running, performance-monitored high-time engine is merely buying the risk of infant mortality - catastrophic failure early in an engine’s life. But, as is so sadly typical these days, CASA is proposing to make things “safer” by implementing a measure that will increase the risk of catastrophic failure. And despite objective evidence, of course.

[Clinton McKenzie]

“Risk-based structure having regard to the circumstances of passengers and participants.” If only.

Much of the structure is based on intuition and convenient fictions. One of those convenient fictions is the one to which you referred. The regulatory regime treats a tourist who pays for a flight from A to B as being a private passenger if B happens to be the top of a tandem parachute descent, but a charter passenger if B is Kangaroo Island. Apparently the tourist understands and accepts the different risks of the flight. If I buy an aircraft and pay Bob to fly my family and me around, it’s a private flight. If Bob instead owns the aircraft and I pay Bob to fly my family and me around, it’s a charter flight. Apparently my family “understand” and “accept” the different risks. If I own a property and agricultural aircraft, I can pay Bob to conduct agricultural operations in my aircraft on my property and it’s a private opertion. If I pay Bob to conduct agricultural operations in my aircraft on my neighbour’s property, it’s a commercial operation. Apparently the aircraft ‘knows’ who owns the land under which the aircraft is operating.

Again, from the Canberra Aero Club’s submission on DP1307OS:The Proposal also perpetuates the myth that it is possible to “ensure that prospective community service flight passengers are fully advised of the risk levels associated with such flights”. The only valid, understandable information that could be provided about “risk levels” is that the standards applicable to a flight are, for example, ‘higher’ than another category of flight or ‘lower’ than another category of flight, and therefore the passenger is likely to be safer or less safe than s/he would be on those other categories of flight: A perfectly useless piece of information if the person does not have a choice as to the category of flight and does not have access to the more important piece of information: Will I or my dependant loved one be safer if I or they do nothing or go instead by road?

[Sunfish]

risk based bull****. Risk compared to what?

[Shipwreck00]

Too many changes going on, if there is a risk, its within...

[aroa]

Due to a couple of unfortunate CFS events...just like in Charter ops...CAsA, the fount of all av-wisdom has decided there is a "risk"
Therefore to completely eliminate this risk, the engine o/h requirement will eliminate the pvt volunteer entirely...so job done
Risk eliminated.!
See.. 'Safety is our first priority'

[Old Akro]

Due to a couple of unfortunate CFS events...just like in Charter ops...CAsA, the fount of all av-wisdom has decided there is a "risk"
Therefore to completely eliminate this risk, the engine o/h requirement will eliminate the pvt volunteer entirely...so job done
Risk eliminated.!
See.. 'Safety is our first priority'

No.

Both accidents (the one near Horsham and the one near Mt Gambier) would have occured under the new guidelines.

This is political grandstanding by CASA. And its being done before the ATSB releases its report on community service flights, which makes one even more suspicious about the true motive.

[Outtahere]

Therefore to completely eliminate this risk, the engine o/h requirement will eliminate the pvt volunteer entirely...so job done


That would be the private volunteer who uses an engine data monitor, regular oil analysis, borescope & compression checks on their low time (but over 12 years calendar) piston engine.

The CAsA wizards should take the time to aim the legislative weapon before pulling the trigger. A lot more collateral damage than intended victims will come from this 'improvement'.

[Sunfish]

cleared to enter Risk Management 101 is all about identifying exposure to undesirable outcomes and then reducing or elimating those exposures

No it is not. Period. It is about calculating the cost of the undesirable outcome versus the cost of reducing or eliminating the undesirable outcome. If the cost of reduction or elimination is greater than the computed cost of the risk then no action is taken because it makes no logical financial sense.

’Contrary to CASA BS, you can put a price on human life - actuaries do it every day in computing insurance premiums.

Risk management is about minimising the total cost to the community of the risks inherent in life. That requires a cost/benefit analysis which CASA makes a virtue of ignoring.

Examples - reducing all road speed limits to 20 kph - reduces the cost of accidents but massively hits economic activity. Ditto making everyone wear helmets, etc., etc. There are numerous cranks who have pet ideas for reducing risk but don’t compute the associated costs. CASA seems to have more than it’s fair share of them.

[LeadSled]

Sunfish,
Well said.
Fact is, the determined and wilful ignorance of the proper meaning of "risk management" is , aviation-wise, not confined to CASA.
To wit, one well known pilot's union that insists that a perception of a risk, even when no risk can be established as existing in the real world, must still be treated as a genuine "risk" and mitigated regardless.
It is clear that, with only a small handful of exception, nobody in the aviation sector has ever bothered to attempt to understand the principles that underlay risk management and cost benefit justification, much less read and understand risk management standards, either the old AS/NZ 4360, or the later ISO standards, much less Government (both sides of the House) policy on the subject, policy pointedly ignored by CASA because of a perverted interpretation of S.9A of the Act.
Tootle pip!!

[Vag277]

For information, Australian government policy on value of human life: https://www.pmc.gov.au/sites/default/files/publications/Value_of_Statistical_Life_guidance_note.pdf

...and
Due diligence - a common law defence against negligence

Where it is possible to guard against a foreseeable risk, which, though perhaps not great, nevertheless cannot be called remote or fanciful, by adopting a means, which involves little difficulty or expense, the failure to adopt such means will in general be negligent.

Chief Justice Sir Harry Gibbs. Turner v. The State of South Australia (1982) (High Court of Australia before Gibbs CJ, Murphy, Brennan, Deane and Dawson JJ).

[Sunfish]

Vag277, “which involves little difficulty or expense” exactly consistent with risk management principles.

[LeadSled]

For information, Australian government policy on value of human life: https://www.pmc.gov.au/sites/default/files/publications/Value_of_Statistical_Life_guidance_note.pdf

...and
Due diligence - a common law defence against negligence

Where it is possible to guard against a foreseeable risk, which, though perhaps not great, nevertheless cannot be called remote or fanciful, by adopting a means, which involves little difficulty or expense, the failure to adopt such means will in general be negligent.

Chief Justice Sir Harry Gibbs. Turner v. The State of South Australia (1982) (High Court of Australia before Gibbs CJ, Murphy, Brennan, Deane and Dawson JJ).

Vag 277,
It ain't that simple.
There is a lot of case law since that judgement, although it is beloved of Civilair.
A most recent one is the successful appeal by Taree Council re. aeroplanes versus kangaroos --- there is a thread about it.
An important judgement that should be looked at is: Jones v Bartlett [2000] HCA 56. 205 CLR 166; 75 ALJR 1; 176 ALR 137. 16 Nov 2000. Case Number: P59/1999.
Look at para.23, in particular, for as good as any definition of "safety" in risk management terms.
In addition, consumer law now allows that "adventure sports" allow participants to assume a risk inherent in the activity, and limits the participant's ability to sue negligence if the outcome is an injury that can be anticipated when things go wrong.
Tootle pip!!

[Old Akro]

My point is that the life of an Angel Flight passenger is worth no more or no less than the life of any other passenger that at a private pilot might fly. And most of the Angel Flight pilots have a multiple of hours greater than many CPL's who fly charter flights. The two accident pilots were mature, experienced pilots with lots of hours and very good currency. If there is a standards issue with Angel Flight Pilots, then there is a standards issue across all pilots, in which case CASA needs to look in the mirror, not point fingers.

[thorn bird]

"If there is a standards issue with Angel Flight Pilots, then there is a standards issue across all pilots, in which case CASA needs to look in the mirror, not point fingers."

Exactly Akro,
In the US Angel flights are a massive undertaking.

Lots of esoteric talk about causality, but it is obvious the incidents here were weather related.

In the US 80% of private pilots hold instrument qualification, here, hardly any.
The reason?
In the US gaining and maintaining instrument qualification is affordable, here it is not.
Therefore the question comes to mind, is Australia's unique over regulation an impediment to safety?
I believe the answer is self evident.

[LeadSled]

"If there is a standards issue with Angel Flight Pilots, then there is a standards issue across all pilots, in which case CASA needs to look in the mirror, not point fingers."
--- is Australia's unique over regulation an impediment to safety?
I believe the answer is self evident.

Thorney,
Exactly,
The short answer is yes.
The longer answer is have a close look at the statistics, the steady improvement in the US over many years, here there is no underlying improvement, the only "improvements" here have come from the collapse in flying hours in some sectors.
And CASA have now put the PIFR out of reach of most PPLs, with just a few seemingly "minor" tweaks to the "rools" --destroying the original and successful in practice PIFR.
Tootle pip!!

[machtuk]

My point is that the life of an Angel Flight passenger is worth no more or no less than the life of any other passenger that at a private pilot might fly. And most of the Angel Flight pilots have a multiple of hours greater than many CPL's who fly charter flights. The two accident pilots were mature, experienced pilots with lots of hours and very good currency. If there is a standards issue with Angel Flight Pilots, then there is a standards issue across all pilots, in which case CASA needs to look in the mirror, not point fingers.

……...and that guarantees what? Obviously nothing! Both weather related but who's in charge of decision making? Your so called 'experienced' pilots! In these two cases one should not have even left the ground the other should have not continued to destruction! In both case the end results where totally unnecessary!
I believe CASA should put a stop to it, but that's just my opinion.

[thorn bird]

So basically your opinion is all GA should be shut down Mach?

Would you apply the same reasoning when we inevitably are faced with
a large smoking hole with a boeing tail pocking out of it? Shut down RPT.
Hundreds of people die on our roads every year. If angel flights are stopped,
forcing patients onto the roads there is a high chance, compared with
private aviation, that patients will die driving, and probably have already.
After you've banned patients from driving to appointments
Whats left for the poor patients? walk to the doctors?....Walking carries a high risk
......Oh bugger it, just stay home and die from the disease....hang on a minute didn't
I read somewhere most accidents happen in the home?....good grief we are doomed!

I've been told Hundreds of angel flights occur every day in the US, they to have had two accidents,
but their regulator has applied no restrictions fortunately they recognise aviation in whatever form
carries risks, but way less than other forms of transport.

[Cloudee]

My point is that the life of an Angel Flight passenger is worth no more or no less than the life of any other passenger that at a private pilot might fly. And most of the Angel Flight pilots have a multiple of hours greater than many CPL's who fly charter flights. The two accident pilots were mature, experienced pilots with lots of hours and very good currency. If there is a standards issue with Angel Flight Pilots, then there is a standards issue across all pilots, in which case CASA needs to look in the mirror, not point fingers.
Agree with some of your post, but are you sure of your facts? How long had the second pilot been flying and how many hours did he have?

[Clinton McKenzie]

Some very important data that are missing:

How many lives have been saved, extended or improved as a consequence of CSFs? What is the value of that?

How many lives will be lost, lifespans reduced and lifestyles impaired if the number of CSFs is reduced? What is the cost of that?

What’s the delta between the two?

As noted by others, a reduction in the number of CSFs may cause a net negative for society.

[Sunfish]

So what then for mercy flights?

[Squawk7700]

So what then for mercy flights?

This has nothing to do with mercy flights.

[Flying Ted]

If this is successful, the next logical step is to expand the definition of Community Service Flights to include services like FunFlight. A kid from a disadvantage breakground is probably less informed about the nature flight risks than a patient seeking treatment.

[Old Akro]

If this is successful, the next logical step is to expand the definition of Community Service Flights to include services like FunFlight. A kid from a disadvantage breakground is probably less informed about the nature flight risks than a patient seeking treatment.

The list goes on and on. Fun Flight, flights sold at raffles / auctions to raise money for the local school. Taking your kids school friends for a fly, scouts, families from the local aero club, the list goes on and on.

Then, what about the pilots who (lawfully) use their aircraft to fly employees around?

This is a pandora's box.

Ben Morgan's letter for the AOPA calling for CASA to revoke the proposal is very good, rational & measured.

A private pilot should have all the skills required to conduct flights in a non commercial environment safely. If not, CASA needs to examine its training syllabus. The CPL training is primarily about operating in an operations manual driven environment with commercial "must get there" and at minimum cost environment.

If CASA was genuine about wanting to improve safety it:
a) would wait for the outcome of the ATSB investigation
b) not release the draft in the days before Christmas with a Jan 31 response deadline
c) consult with industry bodies (eg Angel Flight) before compling the draft
d) understand that the 2 accidents that CASA is "knee jerk" reacting to would have complied with the new regs, thus realising that they are only increasing bureacracy and not improving safety
e) canvass real safety initiatives like making flight following more readily accessible, allowing experienced pilors to act in coaching or mentoring roles (which CASA effectively outlawed in the early 90's)

[LeadSled]

The list goes on and on. Fun Flight, flights sold at raffles / auctions to raise money for the local school. Taking your kids school friends for a fly, scouts, families from the local aero club, the list goes on and on.

Then, what about the pilots who (lawfully) use their aircraft to fly employees around?

This is a pandora's box.


Old Akro,
See my post about "Private Operations AOC", and have a search around for the original CASA proposal. Captures all of the above.

"Private Operations", without the benefit of the said AOC, ie: Private Operations as ICAO/the Rest Of the World knows it, would be limited to the owner/pilot of the aircraft and immediate family.

What is happening here is a resurrection of the CASA Private Operations AOC proposal, and yet again, an example of how hard it is to kill a bad idea, once it takes hold in CASA.

A real live example of the process is Part 132, no real substance, no answer to any known problem, just an answer looking for a problem ---- introduced in very questionable circumstances, hundreds of pages to do what several paragraphs in the then existing regulation had successfully done for about eighteen years. The seemingly unstoppable creep of bureaucratic micro-management, despite Government (bi-partisan) policy to the contrary.

But, as you all understand" "Safety is our first priority" ------ the safety of our very lucrative bureaucratic sinecures.

Tootle pip!!

[aroa]

Leadie's last line. Now aint that absolutely the truth.

[ANCIENT]

Some very good arguments here so please go online and complete the survey.
CASA not likely to read Pprune

[Flying Ted]

Cleared, this is the point you be making in your submission - the premise is flawed. CASA must demonstrate there is a case for change rather than making simple assertions. The problem of "mustgoitis" is a well known risk within private flying (unfortunately) in this regard there is nothing special about CSF.

[Lead Balloon]

Some very good arguments here so please go online and complete the survey. ...The “survey” is itself a manifestation of the fundamental problem.

In any event, CASA will ignore the results. As is the usual case (and as happened the previous time the regulatory hydra grew the CSF head) the outcome will be determined by politics. If Angel Flight can again marshal a groundswell of community support to lobby their federal politicians (mainly Coalition members) to preserve the regulatory status quo, the head will be cut off again.

But this time around CASA is banking on the pollies being focussed on other stuff for the next few months.

And we all know what happens each time you cut off one of the Lernean Hydra’s heads...

[Creampuff]

Cleared, this is the point you be making in your submission - the premise is flawed. ....Since when has a flawed premise been a problem to the bloated leaches that feed on aviation "safety"?

My favorite flawed premise is the first sentence of the abstract of Dougal Watson's paper Lack of International Uniformity in Assessing Color Vision Deficiency in Professional Pilots:
Color is an important characteristic of the aviation environment. Pilots must rapidly and accurately differentiate and identify colors.That's how "evidence-based" and "risk-based" regulation works: You just assert as true that which justifies your scaremongering-fed existence.

[Sunfish]

I am sympathetic to CASA’s position. The lack of payment is not the issue. An Angel Flight pilot is effectively “standing in the marketplace” - available to those who ask for assistance. The moral imperative to assist those in need may overcome the usual prudence and lead to suboptimal personal decisions. Some guidance would be useful.

[Old Akro]

The moral imperative to assist those in need may overcome the usual prudence and lead to suboptimal personal decisions.

I have flown a reasonable number of Angel Flights. I memory serves I've cancelled 2 due to weather and one due to aircraft technical issues. I completely disagree with your premise.

[aroa]

Sunny...'lack of payment not the issue.
If it was , for CAsA all hell would break loose, 'commerce commerce ' the sky is falling..CPL and AOC needed..(more work for us)..and that would get rid of all pvt players.
Their ,brain snap approach, re engine hours has sfa to do with the decision making processes used by pilots once they are off the ground.
CAsA has this misguided fundamentalist zeal that they can prevent any aviation accident, whatever the cause. Its an impossiblity, but little GA is a very easy target, CFS flights become the 'what shall we do this week' and for CAsA ' we are they ultimate "safety" gurus' so cop this.!
Utter brilliance.!

[Sunfish]

Old Akro, who isn’t moved by the sight of a sick and needy child? That natural reaction may possibly overcome ones normal caution and perhaps launch when your instincts might be to wait. Our natural charity could be our undoing.

I have, in my own stupidity, turned out in a fire tanker with a driver who had maybe had one beer too many, such is our natural desire to help unfortunates. - I transgressed the first rule about helping anyone. Angel Flight pilots run that same risk.

[Lead Balloon]

Assuming you’re correct, Sunfish, the question is: So what? To put that another way, on the basis of what data are you saying that the increased risk in the circumstances you describe is “unacceptable”?

Not all risk taking ends in disaster. Some disasters are the inevitable consequence of living in a world that will never be risk-free and enjoys a net benefit from risk taking.

I thought you were a guru on risk analysis and cost/benefit analysis?

[Sunfish]

i’m not saying that the risk is unacceptable or CASAs prescription is correct. What i am saying is that the risk is potentially different from your run of the mill family jolly ride.

We are all familiar with the dangers of “get thereitis “ which has killed many..

’What I am saying is there is a condition called “get poor deserving kid to hospital-itis “ that may turn out just as badly if it is not managed in some way.

[machtuk]

'Sunny' I happen to agree with you. It's fine for others not to, they have their agenda as we do. CASA are approaching this all wrong, maint isn't the part that is where the risk lies but CASA only tie up safety with risk mechanically in most cases. I've said it before I don't believe these flights ought to be allowed despite all the good intentions, but that's just me. my opinion.

[Sunfish]

Perhaps if there was a cost free road option available then the pressure might be less.

[Clinton McKenzie]

But would the road option be risk free? No. I regularly see Angel Flight tasks from places like Hay and Warren to YSBK. Ever heard of the road toll, especially on country roads?

Would the road option be time free? No. Do the calcs on the delta between the flight time and the drive time from places like Hay and Warren to YSBK. Even economically poor people can be time poor. Some are working a number of jobs to survive.

Would the road option be get-there-itis free? No. I reckon the fatigue risk would be higher than the flight option.

I don't mind if 'private' CSF's are 'banned', provided there is reliable data and analysis to show that the benefits of the ban would outweigh the costs. Where is the reliable data and analysis to show the benefits of CSFs at the current 'standard'?

If 'private' CSF's are 'banned', and there's a fatality during a 'higher standard' CSF, what then? Another kneejerk increase in standards? Deaths occur during charter flights.

Might as well get it over and done with and jump straight to the inevitable: CSFs banned except in transport category aircraft to and from aerodromes with a CATIIIC ILS.

[Sunfish]

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.

[Dexta]

Sunfish ’What I am saying is there is a condition called “get poor deserving kid to hospital-itis “
ClearedtoreenterPerhaps some pilots are afflicted by ‘get thereitis’ or ‘watch this’ syndrome.
Sunfish i am simply saying that the emotional imperative behind CSFs are different from purely private operations
During this holiday season I have seen a few pilots taking to the air with family and friends in less than ideal situations (not unsafe, just not ideal) because that is the only time they can do it, or it was a promised Christmas present, etc. etc. I would say there is some form of pressure in nearly every flight we do (its a beautiful day and the weather for next week is rubbish, I should go for a fly today). Part of the training and ongoing responsibility of being a pilot (Recreational, GA, ATP, etc.) is to recognise and manage pressure. How a person perceives or even creates pressure for themselves and the way they handle that pressure can be a real problem with private flying. One person can be fine the other stressed, one prepared the other unprepared. Whether it is a CSF or a family trip, or even a solo jaunt around the block the mental attitude and preparedness for the flight, if lacking, can lead to accidents.
Since our society seems hell bent on controlling everything we do through regulation and safety initiatives here are a few suggestions...
1. A psychological test must be conducted and submitted to CASA before each flight. (OzRunways could build this into their program)
2. A certificate from a certified psychologist or psychiatrist before commencing flight operations.
3. A Cortisone sensor linked directly to the aircraft master switch, like a breathalyser switch but for stress.
4. Take responsibility for your own actions and state of mind, act in a professional and rational manner, seek additional training, use a support network of other experienced people if in doubt and do not take unnecessary risks.

I wonder which one CASA will choose?

[thunderbird five]

All 7. (you probably missed a few).

[thorn bird]

I am currently preparing a one thousand page operations Manual, a safety management Manual, a quality assurance Manual,
a check & training Manual, Maintenance Manual, ongoing maintenance assurance manual, A CRM Manual, a TEM manual and a detailed FCOM.
This is to support an application for an AOC. I will be employing the 20 or so non technical staff necessary to ensure compliance.
I am hopeful my AOC will be granted within CAsA's ten year estimate for completion so I can be legally approved to hide under my bed.
WE are doomed!!

[AngelFlightCEO]

Below is a submission from one of our experienced RPT and private owner pilots: sums it up nicely.

Introduction of proposed safety standard - community service flights

The proposal introduces minimum CSF pilot experience, licensing and medical requirements, requirement of flights at night to be conducted using instrument procedures instead of visual procedures and requires slightly enhanced aircraft maintenance requirements, in line with other operations within Australia involving similar participants.

Please provide feedback below. You may enter as little or as much information as you wish.: Proposed safety standard - Community service flights (CD 1814OS)

The suggestion that CSF passengers are uninformed or even less informed than other private flight/ GA charter passengers is absurd. By the time CSF passengers board an aircraft they have been provided with written information and adequate time to make an informed decision on whether to travel by air or alternative means. This information is provided by the CSF provider & then verbally by the PIC. If a CSF passenger is still ‘uninformed’, it is by choice.

Proposed recency requirement- one landing in the type or class in the last 30 days. I only need 1 landing in the last 45 days to operate a widebody aircraft for an Australian HC AOC holder. The 10 widebody (type) landings I may have conducted in the last 30 days will apparently not count for recency for a CSF in my GA single engine aircraft.

The operational environment for a CSF pilot is benign in comparison to that of a working CPL holder. No employment threats, serviceable & familiar aircraft, the ability to cancel a flight without consequence, flights planned well in advance & no remote areas. To suggest that the experience requirements to operate a CSF flight should be higher than those required for a commercial operation is thus nonsensical.

The proposed requirement for piston engines to meet AD/Eng/4 requirement 2 (calendar life) defies logic. My piston engine is electronically data monitored, is checked & oil changed by a licensed engineer every 4 months, undergoes laboratory oil analysis 3 times/ year & is borescoped & compression checked every 12

months. To suggest that overhauling the engine simply to meet a calendar requirement defies logic. It merely puts the engine back into the high risk zone for catastrophic failure.

The CSF with which I am familiar has operated nearly 23,000 flights & suffered 2 accidents in 15 years. A sensible approach to improving safety would be to examine what the 22,998 flights have been doing successfully rather than impose a grab bag of untried limitations.

The proposed changes as documented conflict with the CASA fairness values. Decisions are to be risk based & evidence driven, both of which are absent from CD1814OS.

Marjorie Pagani
Chief Executive Officer
Angel Flight Australia

[LeadSled]

Marjorie,
Time for a major petition, with plenty of publicity, on something like Change.org.
AOPA should be able to arrange an email out to every Federal and State politician with multiple shots to very news outlet.
CASA do not like lots of very public attention.
Tootle pip!!

[AngelFlightCEO]

Thanks Leddie. Ben at AOPA has been very helpful. But I think the real focus is on how they are attempting to bypass proper democratic and legislative processes ( quite apart from lack of consultation with AF and industry). To take away rights or impose restrictions on licence holders, with the stroke of the CEO’s pen, is dictatorial and an abuse of process. Our licences and maintenance requirements are governed by the Regs: any amendment should be by proper Regulatory change . By ambushing us all on the eve of long holidays , and by proposing an administrative direction, ensures no ‘interference’ by our elected representatives in parliament. Parliamentary members can disallow Regs - they cannot disallow a direction, and nor does it have to be presented to either House. The implications of this high-handed and undemocratic action, if allowed to proceed, sets a dangerous precedent which could see all or any of our aviation rights cancelled at the whim of CASA, and not the legislature.

Contacting State and Federal members to alert them to this proposed action would be helpful, particularly the attempt to block them from having a say in this process, which fundamentally alters the rights of licence holders and aircraft owners/operators.

[Clinton McKenzie]

The suggestion that CSF passengers are uninformed or even less informed than other private flight/ GA charter passengers is absurd. By the time CSF passengers board an aircraft they have been provided with written information and adequate time to make an informed decision on whether to travel by air or alternative means. This information is provided by the CSF provider & then verbally by the PIC. If a CSF passenger is still ‘uninformed’, it is by choice.

Proposed recency requirement- one landing in the type or class in the last 30 days. I only need 1 landing in the last 45 days to operate a widebody aircraft for an Australian HC AOC holder. The 10 widebody (type) landings I may have conducted in the last 30 days will apparently not count for recency for a CSF in my GA single engine aircraft.

The operational environment for a CSF pilot is benign in comparison to that of a working CPL holder. No employment threats, serviceable & familiar aircraft, the ability to cancel a flight without consequence, flights planned well in advance & no remote areas. To suggest that the experience requirements to operate a CSF flight should be higher than those required for a commercial operation is thus nonsensical.

The proposed requirement for piston engines to meet AD/Eng/4 requirement 2 (calendar life) defies logic. My piston engine is electronically data monitored, is checked & oil changed by a licensed engineer every 4 months, undergoes laboratory oil analysis 3 times/ year & is borescoped & compression checked every 12 months. To suggest that overhauling the engine simply to meet a calendar requirement defies logic. It merely puts the engine back into the high risk zone for catastrophic failure.

The CSF with which I am familiar has operated nearly 23,000 flights & suffered 2 accidents in 15 years. A sensible approach to improving safety would be to examine what the 22,998 flights have been doing successfully rather than impose a grab bag of untried limitations.

The proposed changes as documented conflict with the CASA fairness values. Decisions are to be risk based & evidence driven, both of which are absent from CD1814OS.Well said.

The terms “absurd”, “nonsensical” and “defies logic” are justified in the circumstances.

[Eddie Dean]

Could be the thin edge of the wedge as we head toward no on condition at all.
Most of the comments here would support that

[kaz3g]

Does this affect Fun Flight too?

kaz

[LeadSled]

Thanks Leddie. Ben at AOPA has been very helpful. But I think the real focus is on how they are attempting to bypass proper democratic and legislative processes ( quite apart from lack of consultation with AF and industry). To take away rights or impose restrictions on licence holders, with the stroke of the CEO’s pen, is dictatorial and an abuse of process. Our licences and maintenance requirements are governed by the Regs: any amendment should be by proper Regulatory change . By ambushing us all on the eve of long holidays , and by proposing an administrative direction, ensures no ‘interference’ by our elected representatives in parliament. Parliamentary members can disallow Regs - they cannot disallow a direction, and nor does it have to be presented to either House. The implications of this high-handed and undemocratic action, if allowed to proceed, sets a dangerous precedent which could see all or any of our aviation rights cancelled at the whim of CASA, and not the legislature.

Contacting State and Federal members to alert them to this proposed action would be helpful, particularly the attempt to block them from having a say in this process, which fundamentally alters the rights of licence holders and aircraft owners/operators.

Marjorie,
Inadvertently or otherwise, you have given a pretty good rundown on CASA Standard Operating Procedures.
And, as another poster has pointed out, if the pain, suffering and worse in not associated with an aeroplane, CASA is actively disinterested.
Tootle pip!!

[Vag277]

Everyone seems to be missing the point that this thread staretd with a link to a set of CONSULTATION DOCUMENTS

[Sunfish]

Scene: A country road in outback New South Wales, three police cars are conducting random breathalyser checks. An SUV has just been flagged down for a breath test....


Officer: “Good morning, blow into the machine till I tell you to stop”.


Driver: (Blows into machine). “Morning Officer, is the reading OK?”


Officer: “You’re fine, by the way, your kid in the back seat is not looking very well”.


Driver: “Oh that’s not my kid, that’s a neighbours kid, Timmy, I’m taking him to Sydney for his chemo treatment, poor little fella.”

8
Officer: “What? Say that again.”


Driver: “Timmy has cancer, I’m taking him to hospital for his regular chemotherapy session, happens every month. His mother doesn’t have a car and can’t get anymore time off work either.”


Officer: Don’t you understand you’re breaking the law by doing this? You can’t take a patient to hospital except in an ambulance. I don’t see any flashing lights on your car, this doesn’t look like an ambulance.”


Driver: “It isn’t an ambulance , it’s just my Toyota. Timmy is strapped into his safety seat, what more do I need? We have water and some snacks and his painkiller medication, this is going to be a five hour drive.”


Officer: “You obviously don’t understand, the law says that only an ambulance can take a patient to hospital for treatment. It’s for safety! You don’t have emergency lights, siren, a flouro vest and a uniform, your not an accredited paramedic either”.


Driver: “But Timmy’s mother isn’t a parawhatsit either, if she had a car, couldn’t she drive him to hospital? Why not me? She doesn’t have the time and she’s not a very good driver as well.


Officer: “The law is quite clear. She can take him but you can’t. Don’t you understand? What you are doing is highly dangerous without being specially trained, in an ambulance, with a safety manual to follow and a procedures manual, operations manual and a log book and a mission statement. I should warn you, the penalties for this are severe. Your car tires look a bit scuffed as well.”


Driver: “ You mean I can take Timmy and a whole car load of screaming kids to McDonalds, Dreamworld or wherever and that’s OK, but if I want to take him to hospital I can’t?”


Officer: “Precisely(smiling). I see you understand. It would be far too dangerous to make that hospital trip.”


Driver: “Well this is crazy. I can do anything I like except help people. Not only that, me and my friends have been driving poor kids to doctors and hospitals for years without any trouble, but you now tell me it’s forbidden because it’s too dangerous? What is Timmy supposed to do if I’m not here - take non existent public transport? Hitchike?


Officer: “It sounds to me like you and your friends are engaged in a criminal conspiracy! Wait till my boss hears this! I should get a promotion for shutting you down. As for Timmy, the law doesn’t care what happens to him. All we care about is safety above everything else. If Timmy can’t travel to hospital then he can’t have an accident during the trip. The logic of the law is simple and unchallengeable. Now turn around and take the kid back home!”

[mostlytossas]

May I make this point quite clear about CSF flights and any perceived pressure to get the passenger requiring treatment etc to his/her appointment. There is none from the patients point of view. Out patient treatment is what we are talking about here and as such a day or two late is here nor there. I know this from personal experience having had a child with childhood cancer many years ago. Luckily for us as we lived in the country some 500km from the city where treatment was carried out, I had a pilots licence, and every month would take my child by private aircraft that I would hire from the local Aero Club or a mate with a plane and do the trip. It certainly beat driving which was 5 hr each way as apposed to a bit over an hour by aircraft. These were the days before Angel flight ever existed and to ever be taken by Air Ambulance/ Flying Doctor you had to be at deaths door. If the weather was too bad to fly we would either drive ( only if the weather was expected to hang around for days ),travel to the nearest larger centre that had an RPT service like the Ansett Fokker Friendship service etc if we had to. Usually however it was just a matter of phoning the treating Hospital explaining the situation as they knew about us country folk that flew in for appointments from the bush ( I think it used to amuse them really) and another appointment would be made. This went on for 3 years.
Only once did I ever have to declare a mercy flight when our child took suddenly sick and the local GP didn't have a clue about how to handle it and told us to get to the city quick. You see when someone is on Chemo their immune system is very low to nil. A simple case of chicken pox can and does kill. That is why we preferred not to use public transport of any kind as you don't know who you are sitting near. On that occasion I have to say Air Services were brilliant. This was in the days of full reporting. They followed us all the way and we had priority landing clearance ahead of the jets waiting to land. An airport vehicle was waiting to lead us to a parking area out of the way near a gate and a taxi was then summoned to take us to the hospital. I take my hat off to them that day.
So from someone who has lived it ,and worried about if your child will survive or not let me say this. Angel Flight or any other outfit/individual who provides this service, it is a valuable and needed service ( not essential as in the Air Ambulance) but valuable none the less, especially where infection is a risk. CASA and some on here do not have a clue , only worried about safety. It is a pity those that came up with such a proposal don't have to put their names to it rather than hide behind the public service cone of silence. What is safe about exposing someone to 100 people in a tin can with any sort of ailment? The flu is serious if on Chemo let alone any other bugs floating around. They should butt out and leave well alone.
As a final note our child did make it and 30 odd years on owes his life to technology as only a few years prior was a certain death sentence.

[Lead Balloon]

Everyone seems to be missing the point that this thread staretd with a link to a set of CONSULTATION DOCUMENTSYou seem to be missing some of the context of the “consultation”, Vag.

This is not the first time a “consultation” on this issue has occurred. This time around we get the addition of yet another bright idea: Time-based engine TBOs, despite what the data show.

The CEO of Angel Flight should not have to say this:

To take away rights or impose restrictions on licence holders, with the stroke of the CEO’s pen, is dictatorial and an abuse of process. Our licences and maintenance requirements are governed by the Regs: any amendment should be by proper Regulatory change . By ambushing us all on the eve of long holidays , and by proposing an administrative direction, ensures no ‘interference’ by our elected representatives in parliament. Parliamentary members can disallow Regs - they cannot disallow a direction, and nor does it have to be presented to either House. The implications of this high-handed and undemocratic action, if allowed to proceed, sets a dangerous precedent which could see all or any of our aviation rights cancelled at the whim of CASA, and not the legislature.

This is not evidence-based or risk-based regulation. This is not “safety through simplicity”.

The process itself is a manifestation of how busted the regulatory paradigm is. An accident or incident occurs and the regulator is “responsible” for responding to it. And what’s the only thing the regulator is ‘good’ at? Regulating. So the regulator trots out a bunch of proposals that will impose more costs, restrictions and complexity and asks: Whaddayareckon? But if the regulator actually cared and listened to what we reckon, the regulator would have listened and heeded the feedback that’s been provided for decades and wouldn’t have come up with the bunch of proposals in the first place, unsupported by any valid cost/benefit/risk data. But that doesn’t matter, because the most important and relevant data that should be essential considerations in standards setting are irrelevant externalities to the regulator.

[YPJT]

Great stuff LB. May I suggest people start contacting their MPs. I have just been onto the office of the Member for Durack as I happen to personally know one of her staffers. He is also forwarding to the member for Oçonnor for me.
Time to ramp this s>>t up folks. Well articulated and strong argument on PPRUNE is great but it is not going to kill this thing. We need to get the pollies on side.

[aroa]

Mta's story gives us the pub and smell tests of CSF. All positive. So CAsA ,..'butt out' and bugger off.!,

CEO Angel is on the mark. This is yet another dictitorial, undemocratic, no due process 'brain snap' so common of CAsA.
And has all the hallmarks of the underhand methods, timing, and etc.

Time for a riot at 16 Furzer St.to get the message across.

[Alpha Whiskey Bravo]

I for one am glad that Angel Flight got away from calling the flights, "Missions" and had total "Missions" attributed to individual pilot's on their website. That was asking for trouble from the start. My brother does them often and will nearly always welcome new passengers with a blind person's white cane and a special "How to Fly" Checklist that he uses. Funny Bugger!

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Hey Mr 'AWB'.....'That' must be 'confidence inspiring' …..at first glance anyway....

Re "Now turn around and take the kid back home!”
Gee Sunny, under what authority do you have to drive the kid home?
Does it matter which direction you are facing....i.e. 'to' or 'from'....

In the eyes of 'Officer Adolf', your vehicle is definitely NOT an ambulance, and therefore definitely NOT suitable for transporting the kid!
So what do you do now?
You cannot take 'the kid' either backwards or forwards.....

I guess you could either -
1 - Give him over to the 'officer' to take home.... But then, the 'officer's vehicle is NOT an 'Ambo' either!
or
2 - Tip him out onto the road, as YOU cannot transport him ANYWHERE anymore....
3 - Suggest to 'officer' Adolf that HE call out the ambos...AND he pay the bill.

Tis a 'CROCK' ain't it..??

p.s. Or, one day we wake up'...It was just a nightmare...................................

No cheers...….NOPE! NONE at ALL!!!!

[Sunfish]

Ex FSO, not quite. Under the proposed rules you can take "timmy" anywhere anytime. Just as long as the flight isn't an Angel Flight.

I wrote that example as an essay in explaining the CSF predicament to ordinary Australians in terms they understand. Once it gets technical the average punter loses interest.

I'm not original either, its modelled on the timeless "bag of peanuts" accounting example.


https://www.forbes.com/sites/boblutz/2013/05/20/giuseppes-restaurant-a-timeless-fable-of-accounting/#18c92a2e69ef

[Lead Balloon]

The safety benefits of the standard significantly outweigh the requirements being imposed. These actions are consistent with CASA’s regulatory philosophy where air safety is not compromised, and the proposal reflects a proportionate risk-based approach.Just goes to show, once again, that CASA does not understand how proper standards setting is supposed to work. CASA can’t even get it’s empty rhetoric right.

The empty rhetoric should have been “outweigh the costs of the requirements being imposed”. However, because CASA doesn’t have any cost data and wouldn’t care less about it in any event, a bunch of waffle and cliches is their only option to paper over what is, in fact, a knee jerk reaction.

No precise quantification of the “benefits”. No precise quantification of what “significantly” means. No precise quantification of the costs of compliance including the costs in terms of people who may no longer have access to CSFs. No precise quantification of the risks taken into account in the claimed ‘risk-based’ approach. None of that has been spelt out because it does not exist.

[Sunfish]

I live three hours drive from melbourne. My wife had breast cancer three years ago. We had two years of chemo, hospital, mastectomy, ultrasounds, radiation, blood tests, physio and reconstruction. Each trip (and there were at least 25 per year) involved a minimum of six hours driving, three days lost time and then overnight hotel accommodation. We are just now in the middle of a weeks worth of follow up consultations, fortunately OK so far.

Out of pocket costs for transportation at least $15,000 p.a., not including accomodation and meals, plus the huge opportunity costs associated with my lost time. Any cost/benefit analysis has to take such significant costs into account.

[mostlytossas]

Just a note to remind ppruners time is running out to get your surveys in.
I will be telling CASA to back off. As above I have personal experience to back it up.
One of the biggest advantages of CSF (or any other private transport for that matter ) is the ability to control infection. And also the ability to divert to another airport should your passenger take ill from the effects of treatment and give them a break to recover. Even if that means an overnight stop somewhere. That is not possible on public transport of any kind.
CASA have had a brain fade with tunnel vision on this IMHO.

[aroa]

As amply demonstrated with the CSF brain fart, its way past the time that 'the mind numbing hypocrisy and incompetence of this "organisation" (sic) should be brought out in the open with a JUDICIAL INQUIRY. An RC would be better

Then the sorely put upon Industry that was GA / or whats left of it, can hang CAsA's dirty washing on the public line.

[thorn bird]

"CASA chief executive Shane Carmody said they believed it was “appropriate to establish a regulatory baseline that provided clarity regarding an appropriate minimum safety standard”.

Err don't those standards already exist? Private pilots are trained, tested and licenced under regulations and standards CAsA enforces.

Is Mr Carmody trying to say they have no confidence that their regulations and standards make private flying safe? If not why not?

Maybe he should stop beating around the bush and say he believes "Private flying is Unsafe in Australia".

What other countries have specific regulations for community service flights?

A little bit of scratching around the web revealed some interesting Data.

Angel flights, or their equivalents, seem to be worldwide phenomena, more so in the USA and Canada.

I guess that would only to be expected considering their GA industries are valued and have not been regulated out of business by rapacious regulators.

The ethos in the USA and Canada being foster and promote, educate and consult backed with sensible easy to comprehend regulations, rather than the regulate and prosecute approach which applies in Australia. They’re also safer than we are!! Goodness how do they do that?

In Canada over 12,500 Angel flights are conducted every year, without incident. Considering the atrocious weather conditions they have to contend with, a remarkable achievement.

In the USA there are various charities throughout the country that conduct Angel Flight type operations,Angel Flight being by far the biggest organisation.

Angel Flight USA and its affiliates conduct over 34,000 flights every year, all over the country.

Angel Flight Australia conducts around 4000 flights per year.

Wikipedia list only six accidents worldwide since 2008 of Angel Flight aircraft, two of those in Australia.

These statistics would suggest to me that there are some fundamental flaws in CAsA's risk analysis processes, if they actually have one.

By its reaction to two accidents is CAsA admitting they have no confidence in the standards they set? perhaps its an admission their oversight of those standards is deficient? Or maybe a knee jerk reaction to two accidents which all the regulation in the world would not have prevented, but perhaps a bit of communicate, collaborate, educate not over regulate might have.

Bob Katters quote of the week

“CAsA HAS DOWNED MORE AIRCRAFT THAN THE RED BARON”

Little video for you in a country where General aviation is valued and utilised.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAdvXa3V7-Q

[Old Akro]

I think either the US AOPA or one of the US Angel Flight organisations published the number of lives that have been saved by Angel Flights vs the expected fatality rate from driving to the various medical appointments.

[Clinton McKenzie]

Sadly, those kinds of opportunity costs are unknown to and irrelevant externalities in decisions made by CASA. It is an example that highlights the fundamental flaw in the standards setting paradigm.

[thorn bird]

A little perspective that puts the lie to Carmody's Bullsh$t.

Unfortunately, human factors in every activity that humans are involved with plays a major role in loss of life, a small but sombre reminder that aviation is not alone. Whilst it may make a few within CASA feel good that they have been seen to be doing something, or someone has paid them a great deal of money. The reality is that only through communication, collaboration and education will we come close to helping solve the issue. No measure of strict regulation and excessive rules will prevent people from making mistakes.

There have been six deaths in six years on Angel flights, that's one per year average.

LADDER DEATHS: Every year, on average, three Victorians are killed falling off ladders - and they have almost exclusively been men aged over 55 who have fallen while doing odd jobs at home, according to research by The Alfred hospital that was recently published in the Injury journal - Feb 2016

Now if CAsA was in charge of ladders they would enact regulations that would make ladders so expensive nobody could afford them.

DROWNING AT BEACHES: The newly released Royal Life Saving National Drowning Report 2017 shows 291 people died as a result of drowning in Australia in the 2016/17 financial year. This is a 3% increase on the 282 drowning deaths in 2015/16.Sep 12, 2017

Now if CAsA was in charge the regulations regarding standards for surf boards and floatation devices would make their cost unaffordable for all but the wealthy.

CONSTRUCTION WORK DEATHS: In the 14 years from 2003 to 2016, 3,414 workers lost their lives in work-related incidents. In 2016, there were 182 worker fatalities, equating to a fatality rate of 1.5 fatalities per 100,000 workers—the lowest rate since the series began in 2003 (Figure 1).Sep 20, 2018

Now if CAsA was in charge thousands more OH&S would be enacted making the cost of compliance so expensive that the building industry in Australia would collapse.

MEDICAL ERROR DEATH: Shockingly, 18,000 to 54,000 Australians are killed each year by their medical treatment —official description “iatrogenic death”. According to Medical Errors Action Group Australia.

Good grief....if CAsA were in charge there would be so many restrictions and regulations enacted that major hospitals would be shifting their surgery to overseas suppliers.

JET SKI DEATHS: Between 1st July 2000†and 31th December 2012, there were 20 deaths reported to an Australian Coroner (as identified on the NCIS database) associated with jetskis where the coronial investigation was completed.

With CAsA in charge expect a mass exodus of recreational skiing to New Zealand.

FARM DEATHS: There was a rise in the annual number of on‐farm injury deaths in 2017 compared to the previous year, according to research by the Australian Centre for Agricultural Health and Safety (University of Sydney). Overall, there were 68 deaths reported in the Australian media last year, according to centre director Dr Tony Lower. Tractors (13) and quad bikes (11) were the leading causes of death, making up over 40 per cent of the total. Tragically, 9 of the fatal cases (13 per cent) involved children aged under 15 years, with the involvement of quads accounting for one‐third (3) of these incidents.

With CAsA in charge, all farms in Australia would be in Chinese hands operating under Chinese rules. All produce would be required to be exported, then re-imported before retail sale in Australia. No real affect on cost as its pretty much what happens now.

DEATH BY FOOD POISONING: A 2005 report found that approximately 120 people die from food-borne illnesses in Australia every year. A British survey found that 82% of people, and particularly the elderly (87%), think they're unlikely to get food poisoning from food at home.

Oh my god I can't imagine what CAsA would do about this. Would eating food have to move underground?

BICYCLE DEATHS: Since the 1990s, cyclist deaths in road crashes have constituted on average between 2 and 3 per cent of the total deaths in road crashes in Australia. In the 1990s, the number of cyclist deaths ranged from 40 to 80 per year. In the 2000s so far (2000 to 2005), the range has been from 26 to 46 per year.

If CAsA was in charge they would ban cars

DANCE PARTY/MUSIC FESTIVAL DEATHS: At least nine people have died from suspected drug overdoses at Australian music festivals in the last five years, according to media reports. At least five people died while attending dance parties in 2015, with one of the deaths occuring at Defqon. A year earlier, a 19-year-old died from a suspected drug overdose at Sydney's Harbourlife music festival. Another person died at Defqon festival in 2013.

This is an Easy one. If CAsA was in charge they could enact regulations that require everyone in Australia to convert to a particular religion that bans music and dancing. Their FOI's could then be inducted as religious police to enforce regulations banning music and dancing.

DEATH BY ELECTROCUTION: Whilst an average of 20 people died each year nationally due to unintentional electrocution (between 2001 and 2008, being years where most cases have been closed), this is less than levels of a few decades ago3. Despite this, it is likely that most of these deaths are still preventable.

If CAsA was in charge we'd all be using kerosine lanterns and candles.

NEED WE CONTINUE WITH THIS?

[Dexta]

Wow! CASA would be having a fit if they watched that video from ACA - Volunteer Pilots, what with children manipulating the controls, not wearing hi-vis jackets on the apron, using LSA aircraft. Oh the humanity!!!

[peuce]

Thorn Bird...perhaps the real issue is....why does our community put such an emphasis on death by aeroplane, as opposed to death by ladder or death by snake? Imagine if the Government spent as much on the Civilian Ladder Safety Authority as they did on aviation??? But they don't...why? We have a perception that an aircraft accident is so much more....I don't know...newsworthy? nasty? horrendous?. Can we alter that perception and reduce the aviation protection business back down to a realistic level? Unfortunately, I don't think so.

[Clinton McKenzie]

peuce: It’s called “cognitive bias” and it’s an entirely uncontroversial and incontrovertible human foible. As I said in my submission to the review of medical certification (footnotes omitted):

A key definition: cognitive bias

For the purposes of this submission, I use the term “cognitive bias” to mean - out of the many forms of bias the term covers - the form of bias that Cass Sunstein[1] calls “probability neglect”. Sunstein observes:

Dreadful possibilities stimulate strong emotional responses, such as fear and anxiety. Fortunately, most high-consequence negative events have tiny probabilities, because life is no longer nasty, brutish and short. But when emotions take charge, probabilities get neglected. Consequently, in the face of a fearsome risk, people often exaggerate the benefits of preventive, risk-reducing, or ameliorative measures. In both personal life and politics, the result is harmful overreactions to risks.

Referring to Sunstein’s work, George Dvorsky[2] uses a comparison between driving a car and flying in an aircraft as an example of probability neglect:

Neglecting Probability

Very few of us have a problem getting into a car and going for a drive, but many of us experience great trepidation about stepping inside an airplane and flying at 35,000 feet. Flying, quite obviously, is a wholly unnatural and seemingly hazardous activity. Yet virtually all of us know and acknowledge the fact that the probability of dying in an auto accident is significantly greater than getting killed in a plane crash — but our brains won't release us from this crystal clear logic (statistically, we have a 1 in 84 chance of dying in a vehicular accident, as compared to a 1 in 5,000 chance of dying in an plane crash [other sources indicate odds as high as 1 in 20,000]). It's the same phenomenon that makes us worry about getting killed in an act of terrorism as opposed to something far more probable, like falling down the stairs or accidental poisoning.

This is what the social psychologist Cass Sunstein calls probability neglect — our inability to properly grasp a proper sense of peril and risk — which often leads us to overstate the risks of relatively harmless activities, while forcing us to overrate[sic] more dangerous ones.

The effects of cognitive bias in aviation regulation

I suggest that:

• Aviation is an example, par excellence, of an activity that evokes dreadful possibilities in many minds, especially when contemplating the prospect of the incompetence, incapacitation or mental illness – for whatever reason - of the pilot/s of an aircraft.

• The current approach to aviation medical certification neglects an objective consideration of the probabilities of those dreadful possibilities.

• This results in – to use Sunstein’s words - “an exaggeration of the benefits” of the current medical certification process as well as building “harmful overreactions to risks” into that process. (In my view, the same may validly be said of the broader aviation safety regulatory regime in Australia.)

The overreactions include intrusive medical investigations and interventions, and operational restrictions, which are unjustified by the risks, benefits and costs. The harm includes cost, stress, the deliberate withholding of potentially relevant information from DAMEs, anxiety about consulting medical practitioners ‘when in doubt’ and, in some cases, the unjustified destruction or impairment of careers and participation in private aviation. This harm is among a number of factors that have had, and continue to have, a stultifying effect on what should be a vibrant and growing general aviation sector in Australia.

[thorn bird]

Nail on the head yet again Clinton.

[YPJT]

At the Australian Airports Association convention in Brisbane last year, Carmody was asked the question as to whether he thought over-regulation was a factor in the continual demise of GA.
His response was somewhat patronising and dismissive and finished with the quote "all GA pilots need is a medical and a flight review". Clearly that question had struck a raw nerve with him.

[thorn bird]

"Clearly that question had struck a raw nerve with him."

Which raw nerve? He's a Mandarin for chrissakes, do you think
for a microsecond he gives a toss. The only thing he cares about
is the size of his super and his final rewards for services rendered.

[Sunfish]

Of course Thornbird, it was ever thus. The only way to obtain change is to threaten the rice bowl and the only way to do that is employ lots of Katters. Truth, justice? Baloney! Naked political power is required but you lot are too gentlemanly to become the requisite mongrels.f

[aroa]

CEO Carmody apart from that patronizing, nonsensical riposte .'all you need is a bfr and a medical ' follows the the bs lines from the LSD.
He's been a bureaucatic locust, hopping off to Depts where the corn is riper, the richer the pickings.
Not only that, like Smart Aleck et al he doesnt believe in the rule of law either, and is quite happy to keep, and aid and abet in the process, criminals on the public teat.

[Fafster]

And yet, in the CASA Briefing of June 2018, Carmody wrote that “In aviation, we don't need more rules – we probably need fewer”.

[Sunfish]

So basically CASA is admitting that the PPL private pilots are insufficiently trained? please explain.

Are there now two standards of PPL?

If this is allowed to stand, it gives CASA permission to invent a whole new raft of restrictions on PPL’S using the same logic; for example based on experience, technical flight planning, operating and maintenance status and requirements for aircraft types, retractable, CSU, Night VFR, remote areas, pax numbers - all based on a pseudo scientific theory of safety identical to the CSF Logic. in other words, a private AOC.

This is just poisonous.

Presumably a private pilot can still make a private arrangement with a patient needing transport, perhaps through a simple bulletin board and that could not trigger CASAs regulations as a CSF organisation (With their existing safety systems) is not involved. I say “could not” because otherwise CASA has given itself the right to dictate who can fly as a passenger and who cannot. This is what I was getting at with my hypothetical example of patient “timmy’ - he can have a joy flight, a trip to maccas even, but cannot be flown for medical treatment.

How stupid, ignorant, unintelligent and counter productive is CASA? These proposed regulations make private flying operations less safe, since they remove an experienced mediator (angel flight) from the equation as well as disadvantaging rural communities still more.

[thorn bird]

Since there seems to be no other logical reason for CAsA's actions
could one be excused for wondering what the kickback is?

Sorry Mr Carmody, checked with angel flight USA. There are no restrictions or extra requirements
placed on private community benefit flights so your misrepresenting again.

[Lead Balloon]

“Sophistry” - the use of clever but false arguments, especially with the intention of deceiving.

In a statement it said it needed to be clear that the issue wasn’t about flying friends or relatives but was about flights brokered or organised by a third party.But when I fly friends or relatives they often bring other friends or their children whom I’ve never met. Is that now, or should it be made, ‘illegal’?

Does the law require that private pilots only carry friends or relatives? What law says that?

If someone unilaterally approaches a private pilot and asks whether s/he will carry a passenger from A to B for free, is that ‘illegal’? Should it be ‘illegal’ if the putative passenger is someone who needs to attend an important medical appointment but can’t afford the travel costs, but ‘legal’ if the pilot and putative passenger become instant friends and the pilot chooses to ‘shout’ the flight for free?

Should it be ‘illegal’ for a private pilot to carry any passenger for free?

Currently pilots conducting flights organised by Angel Flight and other providers operate aircraft to Private Pilot Licence standards.Oh no.

Part of the suggested changes would make standards equivalent to those in the charter flight business.But accidents happen in charter. What CASA does not do, because is cannot do it, is specify the rate of accidents and incidents that is acceptable at any of the various standards. Nor does it specify why it’s OK to dictate that a passenger may not be exposed to the risks arising from flying at the private standard, but it is OK for that passenger to be exposed to the risks arising from flying at the charter standard instead of the lower risks arising from flying at the RPT standard.

“It is important to note that CASA has no regulatory oversight of Angel Flight, an organisation which acts as an intermediary between patients and pilots,” the statement read.And it is important to note that CASA has no regulatory oversight of any of the intermediaries between any passenger and any of the aircraft on which they fly.

“Short of the organisations facilitating the flights voluntarily imposing safety enhancements themselves, CASA’s only regulatory option is to enhance minimum standards for pilots and their aircraft.The word “enhancements” is sophistry. Forcing time-based engine overhauls is merely mandating unnecessary risk of catastrophic failure. If only the regulator made decisions on the basis of objective evidence and objective risk analysis, in accordance with its rhetoric.

“CASA has had various discussions with the relevant organisations on opportunities to enhance safety standards including pilot education and safety awareness, since the most recent fatal accident involving a flight facilitated by Angel Flight in 2017.The word “enhancements” is sophistry. Forcing time-based engine overhauls is merely mandating unnecessary risk of catastrophic failure. If only the regulator made decisions on the basis of objective evidence and objective risk analysis, in accordance with its rhetoric.

“This tragic accident resulted in the deaths of three people, as did the accident that preceded it 2011.Tragic accidents occur in charter and RPT. On what basis has CASA decided the acceptable rate of accidents and incidents in CSFs? In charter? In RPT? What are those rates?

“CASA believes that insufficient progress has been made on safety enhancements to date and that the safety benefits of the proposed direction will significantly outweigh any of the requirements that may be imposed.”What CASA “believes” has no causal connection with safety. What CASA “believes” is just the subjective opinions of individuals. The fact that those opinions might be given effect through the exercise of regulatory powers does not turn those opinions into objective truths. An appeal to power is just an appeal to power.

[Sunfish]

Perhaps if Angel Flight supporters arranged a protest at the CASA stand at the Avalon Airshow - with suitable media coverage of course. Maybe even Mr. Katter might like to make an appearance?

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

BEST RESPONSE YET - Mr S...………

With "MUCHO" Media coverage...of course....

(And, invite Mr Morrison......Who..??)

Just do it..!!

[Sunfish]

Does Angel flight have a stand? Run a petition? have handouts?

[aroa]

The sophistry of supporting 'arguments from CAsA examined by Led Balloon are the result of the Smart Aleck methods verbiage, spin.and legal excellence in BS.
Proof.. I have three page thesis from him , of verbal vomitus explaining how absolute lies, sworn to by CAsA employees, are actually just "discrepancies in the wording, or use of discrepant words" I kid you not. No wonder the CDPP bolted !!

And as for CAsA's interest in the acceptable rate of Chtr and RPT accidents, ..in court a CAsA 'ambush' witness gave a treatise on how dangerous PPLs are, and do all the killing. AND during the year of pursuit Oz wide of a PPL photographer, light chtr in Cape York and Torres Straits had 7 accidents and 21 fatalities.

Bring on the Judicial Inquiry.
And Angel Flight stall at Avalon, Katter and a protest...where do we sign on?

[peuce]

Just wondering.....I would be interested in knowing the number of patients injured or killed being driven in either cars or ambulances to hospital ???
It's pretty sad that we have to be so ghoulish.

[On eyre]

I suggest positive training to negate “getthereitis” affecting some pilot’s egos might not go astray and solve most of the perceived problem.

[alphacentauri]

This is a perfect opportunity to make the link between cost and safety....and to be honest I am surprised AOPA haven't already made the connection.

The cost of flying is/is getting, so prohibitively expensive that I would argue general currency has/is suffering as a result. I know myself and others are not flying as much due to the costs......you don't have to extrapolate that out far in order to ask the question , compared to our fellow aviators in the US (or other parts of the world), just how current/competent are we? If I did more flying I would be a lot more competent, but I don't, due cost. How many Angel Flights are conducted by pilots that have done little more that 3 T/O/LDGs in the previous 90 days. Sure they are legal....but.... could they be 'legaller' if the cost of being so was reduced?

If you ever wanted a bigger argument for decreasing GA flying costs, this is it. If the costs reduce, the frequency of flying increases and overall safety surely must also increase. I have mates in the US who fly GA aircraft much more regularly than in Aus and at nearly half the cost. GA accident rates over there are better than ours......yes its anecdotal...but the only real difference is cost. (yes reg framework is more enabling but this also has direct influence on cost)

Just my 2 cents worth

[Lead Balloon]

And we should ask the rhetorical question, again: Why do a much larger proportion of private pilots in the USA have IFR ratings compared with in Australia.

[Old Akro]

I suggest positive training to negate “getthereitis” affecting some pilot’s egos might not go astray and solve most of the perceived problem.

I don't think that either of the Angel Flight accidents support the premise that either "get there itis" or " pilots egos" were involved.

In the first of the 2 accidents, the pilot landed at Bendigo to check weather. This doesn't fit with either the pilot having a big ego or “getthereitis”. At Bendigo (from memory) the pilot made 3 phonecalls, one of which was to the BoM and after recieving that advice the pilot chose to continue. The ATSB conveniently omits any details of the call made to the BoM despite the fact that the call was recorded.

the ATSB has not yet released the report on the second accident and the preliminary report has scant detail, so the cause is complete conjecture and the ATSB preliminary report does not rule out mechanical issues. But, the pilot had flown into Mt Gambier some 2 hours prior and was therefore fully aware of the weather. Mt Gambier has a commercial service to Adelaide. Anyone who has actually flown Angel Flights (as opposed to those who speculate) know that its the easiest thing in the world to ring Angel Flight and declare the visibility unsuitable and have the passengers booked commercially instead.

[machtuk]

I don't think that either of the Angel Flight accidents support the premise that either "get there itis" or " pilots egos" were involved.

In the first of the 2 accidents, the pilot landed at Bendigo to check weather. This doesn't fit with either the pilot having a big ego or “getthereitis”. At Bendigo (from memory) the pilot made 3 phonecalls, one of which was to the BoM and after recieving that advice the pilot chose to continue. The ATSB conveniently omits any details of the call made to the BoM despite the fact that the call was recorded.

the ATSB has not yet released the report on the second accident and the preliminary report has scant detail, so the cause is complete conjecture and the ATSB preliminary report does not rule out mechanical issues. But, the pilot had flown into Mt Gambier some 2 hours prior and was therefore fully aware of the weather. Mt Gambier has a commercial service to Adelaide. Anyone who has actually flown Angel Flights (as opposed to those who speculate) know that its the easiest thing in the world to ring Angel Flight and declare the visibility unsuitable and have the passengers booked commercially instead.

I totally disagree with yr comments I believe 'gethomeitis/getheritis' played a HUGE roll in both crashes!
Go replay & view the ABC 7:30 report documentary on these two crashes, should never have happened!
It's an amazing organization AF but his is not the way to go about it!
Personally these flights should not be allowed unless under a far stricter regime, but that's my OPINION!

[Sunfish]

oh i see, light aircraft are for entertainment, using them for anything more constructive is a dangerous thing because then motivation will always overcome common sense. Machtuk is bringing us back to medieval logic. Human beings cannot be trusted to make good decisions but must always defer to divine authority- the great god “safety “ as revealed by his high. priest CASA.

[machtuk]

oh i see, light aircraft are for entertainment, using them for anything more constructive is a dangerous thing because then motivation will always overcome common sense. Machtuk is bringing us back to medieval logic. Human beings cannot be trusted to make good decisions but must always defer to divine authority- the great god “safety “ as revealed by his high. priest CASA.

I expect personal attacks, a lot in here are good at that! Go ahead knock yourself out!

[Sunfish]

You regard an ABC report as factual? Then you build your opinion around it and expected be taken seriously? What planet are you on?

You have fallen for CASAs sleight of hand where they now claim the power to categorise types ​​​​​​ of private flights according to the passengers and circumstances of the flight. That is effectively an end to private flight in its entirety!

To put that another way, it ain’t private if CASA can dictate who you can carry and where you can go. Have you got that through your head?

[Outtahere]

Personally these flights should not be allowed unless under a far stricter regime, but that's my OPINION!

So machtuk, if the YMTG accident pilot had hypothetically had an identical accident the day before, killing his two young grandchildren, would this be more or less tragic than the AF accident? Would the grandchildren be more or less 'uninformed' than the subject AF passengers? Surely these innocent children should also be afforded the regulatory protection that a 'stricter regime' would afford. Maybe we can tack that onto the Casa proposal.

Strict regimes also have accidents, no less tragic, the difference is simply that more rules are broken in the process.

Webjet & the other flight intermediaries must be the next CASA targets, surely they have booked passengers on ill fated Lionair/ Air Asia flights without informing the innocent passengers of the risk.

As Old Akro says, cancelling an AF is the easiest flight cancellation a pilot can make (its just a phone call). When I cancel a private family flight I subsequently need to re-book hotels & hire cars, my kids miss school & I miss work the next day- far more complicated.

[machtuk]

Continue on guys, I expect a few personal attacks. It's an Australian pilots thingy, most hate it when an another opinion is viewed!

[Old Akro]

I just think that referring to the 7:30pm as an authoritative source is the funniest thing I've seen in a long time.

[Lead Balloon]

I’m with machtuk.

Mandating calendar-based engine overhauls will cure ‘get-home-itis’ and continuing VFR into IMC. That, and shortening the period in which the minimum number of landings and take offs in type have to be completed, should just about get to zero accidents and incidents. The next step should surely be minimum CPL and AOC coverage, to guarantee zero fatalities.

[Cloudee]

CASA had a problem with these two Angel Flight fatal accidents. It may well be that both were caused by pilots pushing into IMC contrary to their licensing. So, CASA rules may have been broken, can’t have that, politicians may blame CASA for not policing rules. Solution? More rules. Reason? To destroy Angel Flight. Problem solved.

[aroa]

Well.looks like Angel Flights will just have to go by another name.
Little Timmy, lives in Warren and is in need of chemo in Sydney, ( we wont mention the medical need.).
Timmy will be chuffed to have a TFE, a Trail Flight Experience on the way from Warren to Bankstown. where en-route the pilot will tell him all about the whys and wherefores of aircraft, flying and may even let him feel the controls.
What a nice educational day out for Timmy that PVT flight was. And took his mind off the hospital visit.

[mostlytossas]

Word around the traps concerning the Angel flight that crashed taking off from Mt Gambier is that the passengers had form in pushing there weight around if you know what I mean. ie encouraging the pilot to go now etc due appointment to keep. Not the first time apparently.
May only be a rumour ofcourse but that is what PPrune is for. If true opens up another Pandoras box and points to the need for education to both pilots and passengers not silly requirements like engine hours,no NVFR etc.

[Lead Balloon]

Absolutelty! And don’t forget to mandate multi-engine aircraft. Half as likely to suffer ‘get-home-itis’ with two calendar based engine overhauls.
Now yer talkin!

And mandating control cable replacement will stop VFR pilots continuing into IMC.

Finally: It all makes sense to me.

[Sunfish]

“gethereitis is not just a medical flight issue.

[aroa]

Not a 'medical issue an individuals mental issue
Its the Pilot's decision, made in the air or on the ground prior to departure, and since its in/from the pilots head, CAsA has NO control over it.
And they really HATE that which they cannot CONTROL
Therein lies the problem, accidents will always happen because individuals will make decisions that lead to consequences, fatal or otherwise and THAT cannot ever be regulated away.
BUt our esteemed regulator sure is trying hard to get there ! "safety" is all whatever the cost, reality or perception

[Old Akro]

CASA had a problem with these two Angel Flight fatal accidents. It may well be that both were caused by pilots pushing into IMC contrary to their licensing. So, CASA rules may have been broken, can’t have that, politicians may blame CASA for not policing rules. Solution? More rules. Reason? To destroy Angel Flight. Problem solved.

lets be clear. The first accident near Horsham was not VFR to IMC. It occurred before last light but the ATSB assumes that due to low cloud and other factors that the pilot becaume disoriented in night VMC. The ATSB said “VFR flight into dark night conditions”. Which in itself is an emotive headline befitting of a Mills & Boon paperback.

There are 2 glaring weaknesses in the ATSB Horsham report. 1. The report does not disclose who the pilot rang when he landed at Bendigo. He made 3 phone calls, one of which was to met briefing. A phone all that would have been recorded. But the ATSB failed to disclose what weather advice the pilot recieved before deciding to reload his passengers into the aeroplane and continue. The second is that one of the passengers - known to be highly agitated - was found not wearing a seat belt and out of her seat. This raises the spectre of an agitated passenger interfering with the control. But this was not considered at all by the ATSB.

The second Mt Gambier incident does not yet have a final report - about 18 months after the accident. Prima facie it looks like the pilot flew into a fog layer and became disoriented. But, the pilot landed in similar (presumably worse) fog 2 hours prior. So - legal or not - he had familiarity with what he was getting into and how high it was likely to extend, which appears to be only a couple of hundred feet thick. There is a strong chance he was able to see blue sky vertically above him and ground directly below him. The aircraft probably only needed to maintain a climb for about 30 seconds to climb through the fog layer, but it did not. We don’t yet know if the aircraft had an autopilot. But a simple wing leveler and an aeroplane producing full power and any semblance of airspeed control would have seen the aircraft climb through the fog. I’m not condoning the pilot taking off into fog and I have personally cancelled and Angel Flight about 3 hours before ETD because of fog. But blaming this accident on VFR to IMC without a report from the ATSB (no matter how poor it will be) is facile.

[outnabout]

I am curious, Old Akro:

How will the proposed changes to Community Service Flights fix what you believe to be the cause (s) of the Horsham and Mt Gambier accidents?

If the changes will not fix the problem, then why amend the regs?

[Lead Balloon]

I have it: CASA should charge a fee to approve each community service flight!

[mostlytossas]

With 10 penalty points if the pilot of a CSF does not submit a full flight plan from his mum at least 24 hrs prior to takeoff. Problem solvered! No more accidents, poor weather or engine failures ( the real cause of all problems according to CASA ).

[LeadSled]

Folks,
See today's Australian aviation page, in my opinion it would appear that the new CASA ChairperX has been captured by CASA --- base on statements attributed to him (I am still allowed to be gender specific, am I??) about the need for new restrictions on Angel Flight, because the operations are not really "private" because the fuel is paid for.
So there you have it, free (donated) fuel changes the category and risk profile of the flight --- and a calendar overhaul of the engine will fix that??.
Apparently, Mr. Mathews does not understand how private operations are defined in Australian air law --- but he is not alone there!!
Tootle pip!!

[LeadSled]

Folks,
To add to the last post, it seems that CASA are going to proceed via a Legislative Instrument, instead of a direction.
Of course, this means it can be disallowed ---- but if I can count, there are not fifteen sitting days of the Parliament remaining, so the LI will lapse when the election is called/Parliament prorogued.
Is this a neat way of CASA sliding out from under what is a very ill-thought out action, and leaving it to the next parliament??
Any thoughts, folks??
Lead Balloon??

[aroa]

More cunning than sewer rats is CAsA. Is the LI designed to lapse as a neat way to get of the hook, that has been well and truly shaken by the comments pertaining their dopey idea in the first place.
A private flight is a private flight...or apparently not, depending on the "wisdom" of some bureaurat.
OMG !! Free fuel..the sky is falling !

The Oz Aviation page 08/02 today was interesting.
With Angel flight CAsA want to flex their penile power muscle. With fatigue rules , not wanted by QANTAS, they go flaccid. Go figure
For the target ....size does count..!!
What a sodding joke.

[Lead Balloon]

Not sure where you get the idea that it will “lapse”, Leaddie.

If it’s a legislative instrument it has to be laid before (‘tabled’ in) each House within 6 days of the instrument being made. Each House then has 15 sitting days in which to move a motion to disallow. According to Odger’s: “Where a session of the Parliament ends because the House of Representatives is dissolved or expires, or the Parliament is prorogued, and a notice of motion to disallow has not been withdrawn or otherwise disposed of, the instrument in question is deemed to have been laid before the relevant House on the first sitting day of the new session. The opportunity to move disallowance is then renewed.”

Note that the instrument is in force for the entire period, which can be months. And note that if a motion to disallow is not moved in either House, the instrument continues in force even if there’s a change in government.

Making subordinate law - e.g. a legislative instrument - in the lead up to an election can therefore be a very ‘clever’ (translation: ‘sneaky arsehole’) bureaucratic tactic to make a controversial law while the pollies are focussed on re-election and the 15 sitting days can span months. By the time the post-election dust settles, the law has done months of damage and the new government is usually focussed on the ‘big picture’ (consolidating itself by, if necessary, making deals with cross-benchers) rather than trivia like subordinate legislation that’s been in force for months and done damage that won’t make any political difference, given that the next election is a couple of years away.

This is, after all, the lucky country.

[Dexta]

The “private flight, not private flight” is where CASA is getting the “we are just following the FAA” line from. In the USA if a pilot accepts any kind of recompense for the flight then the flight cannot be operated under Part 91 (private) but must be under part 135 (charter). Recompense can be free fuel or even flight time in someone else’s aircraft. Cost sharing doesn’t apply because the purpose of the flight is for the passengers not for the pilot. So the FAA has been coming down hard on these Community Service Flights but also recognises the need for them, so they issue an excemption to the various organisations such as Angel Flight. This excemption to allow recompense in the form of free fuel comes with various requirements, such as minimum pilot hours, hours on type, must be IFR etc (though no mention of engine overhauls). A lot of pilots in the USA who wish to do a CSF find the additional requirements to receive free fuel all too hard and just pay for everything themselves thus making it a purely private Part 91 flight.

[LeadSled]

Lead Balloon,
That clears up one point about which I was uncertain --- let us hope that at least somebody like Bob Katter will move a disallowance --- as you say, all the damage is done by the time the dust settles after an election, even if a disallowance is moved.
Tootle pip!!

[Lead Balloon]

A lot of pilots in the USA who wish to do a CSF find the additional requirements to receive free fuel all too hard and just pay for everything themselves thus making it a purely private Part 91 flight.


Astonishing that the universe adjusts the objective risks of the flight according to who paid for the fuel. Same pilot, same aircraft and fuel and same passengers, and “safe” if the debt owing for the fuel is discharged by the pilot, but “unsafe” if the debt owing for the fuel is discharged by someone other than the pilot. Truly astonishing.

I think you’ll find that in the USA - as in Australia - a person can buy an aircraft (and the fuel that’s put in it) and pay a pilot to fly the person around, and that’s a private flight that can be carried out VFR. The person who buys the aircraft may have zero understanding of the risks of being flown around privately to the VFR. I wonder how the aircraft ‘knows’ the passenger (owner) is not a community service flight passenger and how the pilot resists get-home-itis.

Truly astonishing.

Leaddie: Occasionally a member of parliament will move disallowance motions as a precautionary measure to ‘preserve’ the mechanism in advance of potential dissolutions or proroguing of the parliament. Just have to find someone with the time and energy to do it.

[LeadSled]

I think you’ll find that in the USA - as in Australia - a person can buy an aircraft (and the fuel that’s put in it) and pay a pilot to fly the person around, and that’s a private flight that can be carried out VFR. The person who buys the aircraft may have zero understanding of the risks of being flown around privately to the VFR. I wonder how the aircraft ‘knows’ the passenger (owner) is not a community service flight passenger and how the pilot resists get-home-itis.Folks,
It is worth noting that there are some fundamental differences between the US and Australian regulations in this area.

In the above, the hire pilot would have to have a CPL, even though the operation would be Part 91 private. FAA General Counsel takes such a narrow minded view of the regulations that say , if a pilot with a historic aircraft goes to an airshow, to even accept a can of coke and a hamburger, they must have a CPL ----- BUT ---- NONE of that position is based on risk assessment or "safety", but simply the rule that says that to receive compensation of any kind as a pilot, no matter how indirect, the said pilot must have a least a CPL.

So, it in no way relates to the position CASA is taking on Angel Flight.

Operations that can be conducted under Part 91 as Private operations are far broader than AU, for example aerial photography ---- is private, there is no Aerial Work in the US system.

Tootle pip!!

[aroa]

Alas for photography, acceptance of the "coke and hamburger" in Oz leads to sh*t and destruction of yr business for the heinous act of "commerce"
NO wonder GA in Oz is fcuked.!

[Lead Balloon]

Folks,
It is worth noting that there are some fundamental differences between the US and Australian regulations in this area.

In the above, the hire pilot would have to have a CPL, even though the operation would be Part 91 private. FAA General Counsel takes such a narrow minded view of the regulations that say , if a pilot with a historic aircraft goes to an airshow, to even accept a can of coke and a hamburger, they must have a CPL ----- BUT ---- NONE of that position is based on risk assessment or "safety", but simply the rule that says that to receive compensation of any kind as a pilot, no matter how indirect, the said pilot must have a least a CPL.

So, it in no way relates to the position CASA is taking on Angel Flight.

Operations that can be conducted under Part 91 as Private operations are far broader than AU, for example aerial photography ---- is private, there is no Aerial Work in the US system.

Tootle pip!!
Gosh. So the FAA now takes the view that the transportation of the owner of an aircraft is an activity for which the pilot has to have a CPL? If so, it seems that the FAA may have caught CASA disease!

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

The "Angels Flights Saga' continues...…Note the last sentence, first paragraph...….

Received this morning 0850WST.....0050Z.....


Dear Angel Flight Supporter

You will be aware that the government agency, CASA, has taken steps to restrict our volunteer pilots, and to ban helicopters, to the extent that the viability of the charity may be placed under threat. Despite repeated requests, the agency has declined to give us, or the Australian Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPS), any safety case, or risk analysis, to support these restrictions. Importantly, CASA has deliberately bypassed its own policies, protocols and ethical standards, by failing to adhere to its regulatory reform criteria. Instead, the CEO of CASA has issued a Direction, simply a ‘law’ which is signed by him. I have repeatedly asked the CEO why he has done this, and the response was, firstly, ‘because I have the authority’, and then when pressed further, ‘because it’s easy’.

I have asked the National Operations and Standards Exec Manager, what the new rules have to do with the two volunteer flight accidents which have occurred in the last 16 years (both involving bad weather), and his answer to me was to effect that they bore no relationship to the accidents. The ATSB (Safety Bureau) has not yet released its report into the last of these accidents, in 2017.

These accidents (two in 46,000 flights) are attracting unprecedented attention from CASA, and in particular, when compared with the high number of fatal accidents which have occurred in commercial operations in Australia during the same period. Initially, CASA was underpinning its rules on the basis that our passengers are ‘uninformed’ (that is, they don’t understand that they are not travelling on an airline or commercial operation, or understand the differences). We have provided CASA with our entire suite of documents which the pilots and passengers (and drivers) must read, sign and acknowledge, and the videos which the passengers must watch prior to flying. We are perplexed as to why CASA thinks that our disadvantaged rural passengers cannot understand what they read, see or sign.

They are also implying that they have no confidence in the training, testing and licensing of their own pilots. You all know that we only accept as volunteers, those pilots holding CASA licences, and flying CASA registered and maintained aircraft for private flight in Australia. Many of our volunteers are airline pilots, commercial pilots, and of course, private pilots. Their new rules do nothing to address CASA’s training or licensing issues – they merely seek to restrict those pilots, after issuing their licences, so that they can fly anyone else in Australia subject to the provisions of their licences, but not rural people coming into the cities with Angel Flight volunteer pilots for scheduled non-emergency medical appointments.

Angel Flight does not know why there has been such a concerted attack on these volunteer pilots and aircraft – given that it is CASA’s responsibility to ensure a proper level of training before issuing the licence – it is not Angel Flight’s job to take responsibility for training under CASA regulations: we rely on them to give licences only to those who have qualified.

After first alleging that they were introducing these rules, with what seemed undue haste just before Xmas, to improve safety (although they don’t relate to the two accidents since 2003), it then moved to relying on the ‘uninformed’ argument, then changed its thrust to ‘ we are doing what the USA is doing’. That is also grossly misleading, as the private flights in the USA are not regulated in this fashion. They only regulate what they regard to be commercial operations and give an exemption if they are flying for a charity. Finally, last Friday, the chair of the CASA board said we are not ‘technically private flights’. How that relates to their restrictive proposals is perplexing- particularly as CASA has never challenged our private status, and the statement bears no relationship to the proposed restrictions.

A very worrying event occurred last week – CASA called a regional TV station, offering them an exclusive statement if they would embargo the story until this Wednesday. That statement was from the chair of the CASA Board, Tony Matthews, who said CASA was going ahead with all but one of the rules. He alleged they were to table it in parliament on Tuesday, but not release that information until Wednesday – thereby limiting the time within which to lodge a Notice of Motion to Disallow the Directions. More worryingly, they did not tell Angel Flight about this – merely advised a TV station. Quite alarming behavior from a government agency, particularly that it issued the statement on 7 February, a mere 5 working days since the close of the brief public ‘consultation’ – there were 230 submissions, many of them being lodged on the last couple of days. It is difficult to see how they could come up with this decision if they were taking these submissions into account (and Angel Flight has privately received many copies of these). The leaked exclusive was then conveyed to The Australian newspaper, and published on 8th February : again, neither the CASA Board, nor CEO, nor anyone else from CASA, had advised Angel Flight of either its decision or its intention to make a statement or table the proposals, : there was no communication from the agency of any kind, nor to AOPA, represents thousands of general aviation pilots, and who had been communicating with CASA over the issue.

Angel Flight takes a proactive position in relation to safety, but does not accept that CASA should bypass proper regulatory reform procedures to rush these changes through, knowing they will have an adverse effect on these valuable services, and that they are unsupported by any safety case or risk analysis. This should be workshopped by industry and the submissions properly evaluated, and a safety risk analysis conducted and released, before reforms are proposed, and these should be done by regulatory amendment – the proposed administrative directive cuts across many regulations, pursuant to which the pilots achieved their licences. CASA appears to be saying that Angel Flight is responsible for CASA’s own licensing standards. This administrative directive both restricts the rights of pilots to fly under their CASA licences, and could jeopardise valuable volunteer work. Even more extraordinary is that CASA has banned helicopters from flying for Angel Flight, although there have been no heli accidents in the volunteer service,: more astounding is that CASA say it is acceptable to get the total aeronautical time required, in a helicopter, but then ban helicopters! This is particularly unfortunate when many of our rural people in flooded communities may need help getting their families to medical treatment when airfields are flooded. They have offered no explanation for this ban.

We urge you all, and your colleagues, to urgently contact both your local Member of the House of Representatives, and all Senators, requesting they lodge a Notice of Motion for Disallowance, so that the issue of safety can be assessed in a measured, educated, and fact-based fashion, adopting the usual protocols and industry input. There is only a brief window of opportunity to do this -the Notice must be lodged this week, possibly Wednesday, Thursday or Friday, on the basis that CASA will deliver it on Tuesday (but again, they have not allowed us this information – we are relying upon what the chair of their Board has said to a television station).

Let’s all pull together to help people in the bush have a better quality of life – contact all federal members of parliament now by email or phone (link to a list attached).

Senators: https://www.aph.gov.au/Senators_and_Members/Parliamentarian_Search_Results?q=&sen=1&par=-1&gen=0&ps=0
Members: https://www.aph.gov.au/Senators_and_Members/Parliamentarian_Search_Results?q=&mem=1&par=-1&gen=0&ps=0


Thanks for your support,
Marjorie Pagani CEO
Angel Flight


No Cheers Here....NOPE!! None at all....

[Track Shortener]

. I have repeatedly asked the CEO why he has done this, and the response was, firstly, ‘because I have the authority’, and then when pressed further, ‘because it’s easy’.

How arrogant is that??

Emails sent, to my local member and all senators in my state.

[Sunfish]

Simple solution: get the public onside at avalon airshow. You have a stand. Write a flyer stating your case hand them out everywhere and invite the reader to go to the CASA stand and start asking pointed questions in a loud voice.

If the Airshow management objects and does not fulsomely support your actions BY A PUBLIC STATEMENT OF SUPPORT FOR ANGEL FLIGHT, THEN CALL ON AIRSHOW VOLUNTEERS TO WITHDRAW THEIR LABOR. All legal I believe.

I would also approach the RAAF, RFDS and medical services for statements of support.

If Angel Flight gets done over this way, then expect CASA to do it again to GFA, RAA, SAAA and anyone else, including the Avalon airshow itself. Time to draw a line in the sand.

CASA obviously wants to ban private flight and they will achieve it by slowly crushing the sector to death.

[vne165]

Emails sent, thanks for the letter and links

[dhavillandpilot]

I'd have thought Bob Katter would be the most obvious one to put a disallow motion

[Squawk7700]

I was surprised to hear of the helicopter ban. So I can’t fly my state of the art twin engined EC135P2+ twin engined IFR helicopter, but I can fly a dirty old rented 172. Makes sense!

[Dick Smith]

I suppose they will say they are complying with the CASA act.

” Safety must be the most important consideration “-

Only used against the weak of course.

Otherwise the tower at Wagga would be manned.

I wonder if the helicopter restriction has come from lobbying by the commercial helicopter industry?

i would have thought a modified “ informed consent “ document would have solved the claimed CASA problems.

More destuction of of the GA industry. I despair.

[aroa]

Is there anything in the current Government POLICY relating to current CAsA Policy.re pvt flights
A recent statement to me by the PMO.. in words to the effect... policy must be followed.
In the late 90s with the COOP /Classification Of Operations Policy was NOT followed.
So, "policy" is whatever allows CAsA to do what they do...when it suits their purpose.

Recent legal statement makes the claim that dicking around with policy (deny/amend/revoke or vary) to suit the required agenda, is malpractice, malfeasance and defective administration.
Hey !, Mr Mathews wotcha doing ??

[Lead Balloon]

Is there anything in the current Government POLICY relating to current CAsA Policy.re pvt flights
A recent statement to me by the PMO.. in words to the effect... policy must be followed.
In the late 90s with the COOP /Classification Of Operations Policy was NOT followed.
So, "policy" is whatever allows CAsA to do what they do...when it suits their purpose.

Recent legal statement makes the claim that dicking around with policy (deny/amend/revoke or vary) to suit the required agenda, is malpractice, malfeasance and defective administration.
Hey !, Mr Mathews wotcha doing ??Whilst it’s long past the point at which the PMO was concerned about trivialities like the law, here is what section 6(2)(f) of the ADJR Act (here: https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2018C00492) says is an error of law: (f) an exercise of a discretionary power in accordance with a rule or policy without regard to the merits of the particular case;As you can see, making an administrative decision because “the policy says so” and without regard to the merits of the particular case is, actually, an unlawful decision. As you can see, the law actually contemplates administrative decisions that are contrary to policy, if the merits of the particular case justify it. But the PMO won’t be worried about trivialities like that. The safety of air navigation demands a disregard of inconvenient laws.

If you want to know the legal relevance of policy to administrative decision making, google the phrase. Plenty of stuff published on the internet by folks who are experts on the subject.

[aroa]

Just another Gibson gob-off
Neither of the accident pilots were 'just out of training' ( so earlier posts on this thread state)
Its the CAsA way.....pluck any BS thought from mid air and chuck it into the mix.
Just shows how ignorant he is on the subject...HE, of anybody should know by finding out (easily)..or just too lazy?,.. the pilot experience criteria req'd by Angel Flight etc.

Trust everyone is busy emailing Senators for the Notice of Motion of Disallowance.

[LeadSled]

Gosh. So the FAA now takes the view that the transportation of the owner of an aircraft is an activity for which the pilot has to have a CPL? If so, it seems that the FAA may have caught CASA disease!

If the pilot is compensated in any way, shape or form, and FAA is red hot on somebody "who just happens to be a pilot", being employed for "other duties".
Actually, it has always been thus, even preceding the FARs in 1957. NZ is more or less the same.
It gets so silly that PPLs taking part in the mas T-6 flights at Oshkosh cannot even except the free smoke oil --- off-spec diesel always donated by one of the oil companies --- said PPLs have to trudge off the nearest truck stop with a couple of 5 gallon drums and buy it.
But, it is much more straightforward to get a CPL in US.
Tootle pip!!

[Global Aviator]

As mentioned the airshow is the best place it seems to get this to the public.

Could even be a passive approach handing out information flyers near the CASA booth.

Of course many Angel Flight supporters could ask CASA representives all day everday about what’s happening.

The general public have no idea about this.

Use the airshow to your advantage, Australia free speech, try and get the media involved.

Not an easy task, very easy for me to type, I won’t be there. I’ve never done an Angel Flight, have had no direct involvement in anyway, I do see what is a good cause though.

I wish you good luck. Take them on in a stage where they will not want to be brought to account.

It seems like it’s just meant to be with the airshow fast approaching.

Lastly do you have past users of Angel Flight who can be there with you advocating the necessity of the service?

[gerry111]

Could even be a passive approach handing out information flyers near the CASA booth.


I reckon that might quickly lead to a phone call from CASA to security, followed by a fast ejection of protesters from the airshow. Not complying with the terms and conditions of their entry being quoted.

[Global Aviator]

Aye but it’s Australia and if that happened....... Free publicity and a guaranteed media showing.

I am saying make sure it’s passive not aggressive.

Is it to late or do Angel Flight already have a stand?

As I type this it’s on the Australian news tv channel in Hong Kong.

I am not advocating a protest but if that’s what it’s going to take to get the general public onside then... Honestly I would love to be able to assist, distance does not allow.

Good luck Angel Flight you are a needed service!

[Sunfish]

global aviator understands that what Angel Flight has is not a technical or legal problem but a political problem. That requires political solutions. Trying anything else except perhaps a high court challenge is a waste of time.

[Cloudee]

Looks like this is the instrument. Some changes to the initial proposal.

Instrument number CASA 09/19

I, SHANE PATRICK CARMODY, Director of Aviation Safety, on behalf of CASA, make this instrument under regulation 11.068 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998.

[Signed S. Carmody]

Shane Carmody
Director of Aviation Safety

12 February 2019

CASA 09/19 — Civil Aviation (Community Service Flights — Conditions on Flight Crew Licences) Instrument 2019

Contents

Page



1 Name (https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2019L00134?utm_source=phplist1740&utm_medium=email&utm_content=HTML&utm_campaign=New+minimum+standards+for+community+service+fli ghts+%5BSEC%3DUNCLASSIFIED%5D#_Toc349299)

2 Duration (https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2019L00134?utm_source=phplist1740&utm_medium=email&utm_content=HTML&utm_campaign=New+minimum+standards+for+community+service+fli ghts+%5BSEC%3DUNCLASSIFIED%5D#_Toc349300)

3 Definitions (https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2019L00134?utm_source=phplist1740&utm_medium=email&utm_content=HTML&utm_campaign=New+minimum+standards+for+community+service+fli ghts+%5BSEC%3DUNCLASSIFIED%5D#_Toc349301)

4 Application (https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2019L00134?utm_source=phplist1740&utm_medium=email&utm_content=HTML&utm_campaign=New+minimum+standards+for+community+service+fli ghts+%5BSEC%3DUNCLASSIFIED%5D#_Toc349302)

5 Conditions on flight crew licences for community service flights (https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2019L00134?utm_source=phplist1740&utm_medium=email&utm_content=HTML&utm_campaign=New+minimum+standards+for+community+service+fli ghts+%5BSEC%3DUNCLASSIFIED%5D#_Toc349303)

6 Community service flights (https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2019L00134?utm_source=phplist1740&utm_medium=email&utm_content=HTML&utm_campaign=New+minimum+standards+for+community+service+fli ghts+%5BSEC%3DUNCLASSIFIED%5D#_Toc349304)

7 General requirements (https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2019L00134?utm_source=phplist1740&utm_medium=email&utm_content=HTML&utm_campaign=New+minimum+standards+for+community+service+fli ghts+%5BSEC%3DUNCLASSIFIED%5D#_Toc349305)

8 Excluded aeroplanes (https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2019L00134?utm_source=phplist1740&utm_medium=email&utm_content=HTML&utm_campaign=New+minimum+standards+for+community+service+fli ghts+%5BSEC%3DUNCLASSIFIED%5D#_Toc349306)

9 Aeronautical experience requirements (https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2019L00134?utm_source=phplist1740&utm_medium=email&utm_content=HTML&utm_campaign=New+minimum+standards+for+community+service+fli ghts+%5BSEC%3DUNCLASSIFIED%5D#_Toc349307)

10 Operational and notification requirements (https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2019L00134?utm_source=phplist1740&utm_medium=email&utm_content=HTML&utm_campaign=New+minimum+standards+for+community+service+fli ghts+%5BSEC%3DUNCLASSIFIED%5D#_Toc349308)

11 Aeroplane maintenance requirements (https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2019L00134?utm_source=phplist1740&utm_medium=email&utm_content=HTML&utm_campaign=New+minimum+standards+for+community+service+fli ghts+%5BSEC%3DUNCLASSIFIED%5D#_Toc349309)

1 Name

This instrument is CASA 09/19 — Civil Aviation (Community Service Flights — Conditions on Flight Crew Licences) Instrument 2019.

2 Duration

This instrument:

(a) commences on 19 March 2019; and

(b) is repealed at the end of 18 March 2022.

3 Definitions

Note A number of expressions used in this instrument are defined in CASR or CAR, including the following:

(a) AIP;

(b) amateur-built aircraft;

(c) Amateur Built Aircraft Acceptance, or ABAA;

(d) approved system of maintenance;

(e) CASA maintenance schedule;

(f) certificate of airworthiness;

(g) class B aircraft;

(h) experimental certificate;

(i) flight time;

(j) I.F.R.;

(k) limited category aircraft;

(l) maintenance schedule;

(m) operating crew;

(n) pilot (used as a verb);

(o) registered;

(p) type (for an aircraft);

(q) V.F.R.

In this instrument:

community service flight: see section 6.

periodic inspection has the meaning given by paragraph 2.1 of Part 2 of Schedule 5 to CAR (containing the CASA maintenance schedule).

4 Application

This instrument applies in relation to a flight in an aircraft conducted as a private operation.

5 Conditions on flight crew licences for community service flights

For the purposes of regulation 11.068 of CASR, this instrument imposes conditions on flight crew licences.

Note See Part 1 of the Dictionary to CASR for the definition of flight crew licence.

6 Community service flights

(1) A flight is a community service flight if it meets the description in subsections (2) to (5).

(2) The flight involves:

(a) the transport of one or more individuals (a patient) to a destination for the purpose of each such individual receiving non-emergency medical treatment or services at the destination; or

(b) the transport of a patient from a destination mentioned in paragraph (a) (the treatment destination) to another treatment destination; or

(c) the transport of a patient from a treatment destination:

(i) back to a place from which the patient departed for a treatment destination; or

(ii) to a destination at which the patient resides.

(3) The flight is provided to a patient, and any person who accompanies the patient to provide support and assistance, without a charge being made to any of those persons for their carriage.

(4) Medical treatment is not provided on board the aircraft for the flight, other than the administering of medication or in response to an unexpected medical emergency.

(5) The flight is coordinated, arranged or facilitated by an entity for a charitable purpose or community service purpose.

Note Section 2B of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 defines charitable purpose as having the meaning given by Part 3 of the Charities Act 2013.

7 General requirements

(1) It is a condition on a flight crew licence that its holder must not operate an aircraft for a community service flight unless:

(a) the licence is a private pilot licence, commercial pilot licence or air transport pilot licence; and

(b) the flight is conducted in an aeroplane; and

(c) the aeroplane does not carry on board any persons other than:

(i) a patient mentioned in paragraph 6 (2) (a), and any other passenger who accompanies a patient to provide support and assistance; and

(ii) the operating crew; and

(d) the holder holds a current class 1 or 2 medical certificate.

Note Subpart 67.C of CASR provides for the requirements relating to medical certificates.

(2) To avoid doubt, the provisions of CASA EX65/18 — Private Pilot Licence Medical Certification (Basic Class 2 Medical Certificate) Exemption 2018 do not apply to the holder of a flight crew licence who operates an aeroplane for a community service flight.

Note An Aviation Medical Certificate (Basic Class 2) issued by CASA under CASA EX65/18 — Private Pilot Licence Medical Certification (Basic Class 2 Medical Certificate) Exemption 2018 is not a class 1 or class 2 medical certificate.

8 Excluded aeroplanes

(1) It is a condition on a flight crew licence that its holder must not pilot an aeroplane operated for a community service flight if the aeroplane is excluded under subsection (2).

(2) For subsection (1), an aeroplane is excluded if:

(a) the aeroplane is:

(i) an amateur-built aircraft accepted under an Amateur Built Aircraft Acceptance; or

(ii) an aircraft in the limited category; or

(b) there is an experimental certificate in force for the aeroplane; or

(c) the aeroplane is not registered.

9 Aeronautical experience requirements

General requirements

(1) It is a condition on a flight crew licence that its holder must not pilot an aeroplane operated for a community service flight unless the holder has aeronautical experience that includes:

(a) a landing, within the previous 30 days, in:

(i) if the community service flight is conducted in an aeroplane that is class rated — an aeroplane of that class; or

(ii) if the community service flight is conducted in an aeroplane that is type rated — that type of aeroplane; and

(b) for a flight that is conducted under the V.F.R. — at least 10 hours of flight time in an aeroplane of the same type as the aeroplane used for the community service flight; and

(c) for a flight that is conducted under the I.F.R. — at least 20 hours of flight time in an aeroplane of the same type as the aeroplane used for the community service flight; and

(d) for a flight that is conducted in a multi-engine aeroplane — at least 25 hours of flight time as pilot in command of a multi-engine aeroplane.

Note See Part 1 of the Dictionary to CASR for the definition of type.

Additional requirements for private pilots

(2) Subsection (3) applies if the holder of a private pilot licence does not also hold a commercial pilot licence or an air transport pilot licence.

(3) It is a condition on the private pilot licence that its holder must not pilot an aeroplane operated for a community service flight unless the holder has aeronautical experience that includes:

(a) at least 400 hours of flight time conducted in an aeroplane or a helicopter; and

(b) at least 250 hours of flight time as pilot in command of an aeroplane or a helicopter.

Note 1 The term pilot, used as a verb, has the meaning given by regulation 61.010 of CASR.

Note 2 For the meaning of flight time as a pilot in command: see regulation 61.090 of CASR.

10 Operational and notification requirements

It is a condition on a flight crew licence that its holder must not pilot an aeroplane operated for a community service flight unless:

(a) the aeroplane carries no more than 5 passengers (including any patient mentioned in paragraph 6 (2) (a)); and

(b) the aeroplane is not operated under the V.F.R. at night; and

(c) the holder submits a flight notification (within the meaning given by the AIP) to Airservices Australia that:

(i) identifies the flight as a community service flight using the acronym “CSF”; and

(ii) is either “full flight details” or “SARTIME”; and

(d) the holder, in addition to the requirements in regulation 61.350 of CASR to record information about flights in a personal logbook, records that the flight is a community service flight in the logbook.

Note For paragraph (c), the flight can be identified by entering the acronym in the “remarks” section of the flight notification: see AIP ENR 1.10.

11 Aeroplane maintenance requirements

(1) Subsection (2) applies if there is an election in force under regulation 42B of CAR for an aeroplane to use the CASA maintenance schedule for the aircraft’s maintenance.

(2) It is a condition on a flight crew licence that its holder must not pilot the aeroplane for a community service flight unless:

(a) the aeroplane has undergone a periodic inspection:

(i) within the last 100 hours of service of the aeroplane; or

(ii) if the aeroplane has been in service for less than 100 hours in the immediately preceding 12 months — within the 12 months; or

(b) both of the following apply:

(i) the aeroplane was issued its current certificate of airworthiness less than 12 months before the flight;

(ii) the aeroplane has been in service for less than 100 hours since the certificate was issued.

[bentleg]

10 hours for PPL VFR , 30 hours for PPL IFR, in the previous 30 days.

Excessive in my opinion - I imagine that will cut out many of the volunteer pilots. .

I was a hobby pilot, PPL, IFR, and flew quite a few flights for AF. I never met those requirements..

EDIT later - I agree on closer reading with a later post that the only 30 day requirement is one landing - that's much more sensible. I have no issue with that.

[Cloudee]

I think the only 30 day requirement is one landing. The hour requirements are total time on type. It appears you can still use an on condition engine.

[Sunfish]

At first reading, I have to say it looks reasonable. Panic over.

[gerry111]

Apart from the extaxcommissioner’s pen now being far mightier than anyone’s sword, fears of what it could do next in GA, and the rather puzzling ban on helicopters, maybe it is.


Shane Carmody has never been Commissioner of Taxation in Australia. Perhaps you are confusing him with Michael Carmody who was, between 1993 and 2005?
(Source: Wiki.)

[Clearedtoreenter]

Shane Carmody has never been Commissioner of Taxation in Australia. Perhaps you are confusing him with Michael Carmody who was, between 1993 and 2005?
(Source: Wiki.)

Yes, of course I am. My most profuse apologies.

Correction

Shane Carmody career highlights

2016 - Deputy Secretary, Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development

2014 – 2016 Chief Operating Officer Department of Veterans’ Affairs

2009-2014 – Deputy President Repatriation Commission

2006-2009 – Deputy CEO Strategy and Support Civil Aviation Safety Authority

2001-2006 – Deputy Secretary Department of Defence



(CASA Website)

[Pinky the pilot]

Shane Carmody career highlights

2016 - Deputy Secretary, Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development

2014 – 2016 Chief Operating Officer Department of Veterans’ Affairs

2009-2014 – Deputy President Repatriation Commission

2006-2009 – Deputy CEO Strategy and Support Civil Aviation Safety Authority

2001-2006 – Deputy Secretary Department of Defence

All of which indicates, to me anyway, that what he actually knows of Aviation in Australia could be engraved in block letters on the head of a pin and still leave room for the Lord's Prayer!:rolleyes:

[thorn bird]

"All of which indicates, to me anyway, that what he actually knows of Aviation in Australia could be engraved in block letters on the head of a pin and still leave room for the Lord's Prayer!:rolleyes:"

Yup, another career Mandarin. Just another self servant feeding on the public teat.
Rumour has it he has very flexible working hours. Maybe he is too busy adding up his super entitlements and working on investment strategies for his obscene salary.

and all the while the industry spirals down the gurgler.

Do you really think he gives a toss? He and his Cohorts have no shame.

[On eyre]

Sunfish - I am with you - still need anti "getthereitis" lessons though !!

[aroa]

the pop song music 'breaking up is not so hard to do' could go for those with gettheritis ..'turning back is not so hard to do.' either.
When the options/wx ahead doesnt look.so good..you'll be pleased you did.!
Better to be down here having a cold beer, than up there in a cold sweat !

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Better to be down here having a cold beer, than up there in a cold sweat !

AHAAAA..... An 'oldie' ...but a VERY goodie...…

Cheers
https://www.pprune.org/images/statusicon/user_online.gif https://www.pprune.org/images/buttons/report.gif (https://www.pprune.org/report.php?p=10390781)

[Lead Balloon]

This is circular nonsense:7 General requirements

(1) It is a condition on a flight crew licence that its holder must not operate an aircraft for a community service flight unless:

(a) the licence is a private pilot licence, commercial pilot licence or air transport pilot licence; andIt’s like saying it’s a condition on your motorcycle licence that you can’t do something unless you have a truck licence. That’s not a “condition” on the exercise of the privileges of your motorcycle licence.

What they meant to say is: (1) It is a condition on a private pilot licence, commercial pilot licence or air transport licence that the holder must not operate an aircraft community service flight unless:

(a) the flight is in an aeroplane;

(b) etc

(2) It is a condition of a flight crew licence other than a licence mentioned in (1) that the holder must not operate an aircraft for a community service flight unless the holder also holds one of the licences mentioned in (1).But once you write it out like that, you see the conundrum that they may have tried to solve through drafting smoke and mirrors.

Do e.g. RAAus pilots have a “flight crew licence” within the meaning of CASR 11.068? I didn’t think a Recreational Pilot’s Certificate is a “flight crew licence” within the meaning of CASR 11.068. If it isn’t, I don’t think CASA can effectively ‘ban’ CSFs by holders of RPCs by imposing conditions under CASR 11.068 on licences that aren’t RPCs.

Is an RPC a “flight crew licence” within the meaning of CASR 11.068?

Does RAAus itself effectively ban CSFs already?

[LeadSled]

At first reading, I have to say it looks reasonable. Panic over.


Sunfish,
On the contrary, it is not reasonable because none of it is even remotely justified.
You should recognise the tactics --- propose to cut off both somebody's leg, then consult, then agree to cut off only one leg, and low and behold, the cutter is praised by the cuttee for agreeing to less draconian action, because they are only going to lose one leg.
Cutting off one leg is still without justification.
Tootle pip!!

PS: I an really mystified by the helicopter ban ?? Who in CASA has it in for private helicopters?? Undoubtedly somebody(s) who believe helicopters should not be flown by PPLs, or some similar irrational idea. Remember, a while back, when it was proposed that only military trained helo pilots could be check pilots /instructors in said flingwings.

[thorn bird]

"Remember, a while back, when it was proposed that only military trained helo pilots could be check pilots /instructors in said flingwings."

Leady,

That would fit in nicely with a senior CAsA mandarin's statement that if he had his way the only things flying in Australia would be the RAAF and RPT.
Of course RPT could only be piloted by RAAF Pilots. Looking increasingly like he's getting his way.

I can't help wondering how CAsA proposes to police this new regulation that's not really a regulation.

Out at kickatinalong Molly Maggot rings Billy Blowfly who owns an aircraft and asks him if he could fly her and her daughter to the big smoke as she needs to buy new school uniforms unavailable in Kickatinalong. Would this be a community service flight?

While in the big smoke Molly takes her daughter to a clinic for treatment. Has Billy now inadvertently committed an offence?

During the phone call Molly tells Billy she will be taking her daughter to the doctor in the big smoke and Billy tells her aww Gee Molly can't take you in the aircraft its against the law if you visit a doctor, but I'll drive you the 15 hours no worries.

Billy inadvertently falls asleep at the wheel on the way and gets wiped out by a road train killing them all.

Would these fatalities be added to CAsA's statistics? Okay silly question.

34,000 Angel Flight missions a year in the USA.
12,500 Angel Flight missions a year in Canada.

The previous DAS who WAS a pilot with some aeronautical experience looked at regulating Angel Flight and declined to act.

Carmody with no aviation experience at all decides it will rain aluminium if he doesn't act against absolutely no evidence of a problem that needed fixing, blackens the name of private pilots and the GA industry by inferring we are a bunch of homicidal lunatics out to slaughter anyone we come in contact with, creating in the publics eye GA is on a Par with ISIS.

[Piqued2]

7 General requirements

(1) It is a condition on a flight crew licence that its holder must not operate an aircraft for a community service flight unless:

(a) the licence is a private pilot licence, commercial pilot licence or air transport pilot licence; and

(b) the flight is conducted in an aeroplane; and

(c) the aeroplane does not carry on board any persons other than:

(i) a patient mentioned in paragraph 6 (2) (a), and any other passenger who accompanies a patient to provide support and assistance





This instrument will dictate to pilots who can fly with them on a private flight!

i often take a mate, wife or family member, Earth Angel, Angel Flight staff or someone else along for the ride on an Angel Flight. This is now prohibited. I understand that Angel Flight have agreements in place with some airlines to carry Angel Flight clients and carers due to cancellations, etc. Does one of these flights constitute a CFS? Under the Instrument, no other passengers are to be carried.

Yet, further down in this goobledygook a CFS is limited to 5 passengers. Obviously all clients or carers.

i can not see how this improves safety!

[Lead Balloon]

I’ve looked at the Dictionary in CASR and it says:

flight crew licence:

(a) means a flight crew licence within the meaning of Part 61; and

(b) includes a certificate of validation of an overseas flight crew licence.

Is an RAAus RPC a flight crew licence within the meaning of Part 61?

Part 61 says:

flight crew licence means:

(a) a pilot licence; or

(b) a flight engineer licence; or

(c) a glider pilot licence.

and:

pilot licence means any of the following licences:

(a) an air transport pilot licence;

(b) a commercial pilot licence;

(c) a multi‑crew pilot licence;

(d) a private pilot licence;

(e) a recreational pilot licence.

If an RAAus RPC is not one of those, I don’t see how the instrument imposes any conditions on RPCs.

[triton140]

Clearly, an RPC is not a flight crew licence.

[Lead Balloon]

It would follow, then, that an instrument that “imposes conditions on flight crew licences” does not impose anything on RPCs.

[mostlytossas]

I said very early on in this discussion that no NVFR will be a problem in winter getting volunteers to take on a flight/mission (call it what you want). The very reason being who can either afford the time off work or cost of overnighting somewhere all because you can't complete that last hour getting home? Most treatments by the time the patient signs in and gets set up will mean they don't get back to the city airport until around 5 pm. Most country flights will be 1 to 2 hours duration is my guess going on past experiance, meaning you are not going to get home before last light. Just what is the issue with NVFR anyway? Engine failure, loss of horizon,etc? I have been flying NVFR for 30 odd years and as long as you abide by the rules with enhanced VMC minima and lowest safe it is not an issue. If CASA wanted to be seen doing something about this scary ( to them ) night flying then make the minimum hours required say 50 or 100 at night before you could undertake it as a CSF.
My guess now will be one of two things will happen. Pilots will walk away from all day trips or do the inbound trip as a CSF and the outbound as a private NVFR flight on a sartime or flight note. CASA in my view in their stupidity are encouraging normal law abiding pilots with charitable hearts to flout the rules.
Again so unnecessary.

[thorn bird]

"CASA in my view in their stupidity are encouraging normal law abiding pilots with charitable hearts to flout the rules.
Again so unnecessary."

of course so unnecessary Mostly, but do you think CAsA gives a damn. If they did Australia would have sensible regulation like some first world countries do, where gaining an instrument qualification and maintaining it is very affordable, in the USA for example most PPL holders have an instrument rating.

[Bill Pike]

This waffle about "charter maintenance standards" etc reminds of a conversation I once had with Roger Verney of Scone Air Maintenance many years ago. I owned and flew a Cessna 185 and said to Roger that if he felt that any additional safety benefit came with being maintained to "charter standards" I would be happy if he did so.
"Bill," he said "I do all and any maintenance that in my opinion the aircraft under my care require . I don't have a separate set of spanners for airline aircraft you know.. All you are missing out on are piles of unnecessary bull**** and paperwork."
Thank You Roger

[Cloudee]

Senator Rex Patrick SA from the Centre Alliance Party will move to disallow CASA’s new rules. Media release below. Centre Alliance Moves to Stop Angel Flights Wings being Clipped: Disallowance Motions to be Lodged to Protect Community Service Flights17 FEBRUARY 2019 Centre Alliance Senator Rex Patrick has flagged that the party will move next week to disallow new regulations that make it more difficult for a charitable entity such as Angel Flight to organise community service flights.

Angel Flight is a charity which coordinates non-emergency flights to assist country people accessing specialist medical treatment that would otherwise be unavailable to them because of vast distance and high travel costs.

"These flights are often used to take remote and country residents to and from the city for treatments like chemotherapy. These regulations will put these sorts of flights, and the medical treatment they enable, at risk," said Rex

The new regulations, tabled in the House of Representatives on Thursday, place non-standard flight qualifications and aircraft maintenance requirements on these flights. They also, for no apparent safety reason, prohibit the use of helicopters.

"CASA is an organisation that sadly seems to pride itself in the amount of regulation it imposes on pilots and aircraft operators, rather than working in partnership with industry to achieve safety outcomes," said Rex. "This red-tape growth has served to kill off general aviation over the past decade. General aviation is an essential service for regional and remote areas and is the breeding ground for airline pilots. Australian airlines are already suffering from pilot shortages, these new regulations will only add to the shortage."

The Senate's Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport heard evidence on Thursday from the CEO of Alliance Airlines that Australia's Pilot Training Regulation "is about 5 inches thick and the Kiwis is probably half a centimetre". He went on to say that "we have often asked why we just can't pick up the legislation that the New Zealanders have adopted". Asked what the CASA response was, he said "CASA just doesn't care". He testified that every country surrounding Australia has adopted the New Zealand legislation and they all send their aircraft to New Zealand for overhaul and repair.

"CASA's regulation growth disease is now being imposed on Angel Flight," said Rex. "While I recognise the need for high safety standards for community service flights, these new regulations will only make these flights safer by virtue of the fact that there will be fewer flights."

CASA licences private pilots and regulates aircraft maintenance standards so that private flights are safe. The only difference between a private flight with a passenger and a community service flight is that the reason for a private flight is likely to be more optional than a community service flight.

Angel Flight takes requests from health professionals, assesses whether the requested flight is within its capabilities, fully briefs the passenger on the flight arrangements and the risks, has the passenger watch a video explaining the service and then asks them to acknowledge that they understand the risks as presented to them. Angel Flight also has their own self-imposed minimum standards for pilots and aircraft.

"CASA is trying to fix something that isn't broken. It has acknowledged that while there have been two recent accidents with community service flights, neither of them would have been avoided if these new regulations were in place."

It should also be noted that these new regulations were rushed. They did not go through CASA's usual consultation processes. "These proposed changes should have been work-shopped by industry and the submissions properly evaluated, and a safety risk analysis conducted and released, before the new regulations were issued," Rex said.

"It is my view that the Parliament will now have to do the work of CASA, starting with questions at Estimates this week, but it is likely that the RRAT Committee will have to more properly examine the changes."

Rebekha Sharkie MP will move a disallowance motion in the House next week to put CASA on notice. Senator Patrick will also move a disallowance in the Senate when it returns in April.

[Bill Pike]

Aviation once had an unlikely friend in high places with the Democrats.This was ruined by a self serving trio on the Board of AOPA who told Brian Greig that the President of AOPA did not have the support of the Board in her quest to stop "strict liability sneaking into the regs. Naturally the Democrats were wary of AOPA after that debacle..John Anderson had promised the trio that he would "look into it later" if they didn't embarrass his Government. Well he might but he hasn't yet.
This exercise has been typical CASA. For over twenty years they have successfully delayed rewriting the regs by proposing ridiculous things and then "retreating" to what they wanted in the first place. And they continually get away with it

[Cloudee]

I’m told the Federal member for Mayo (SA) has submitted a motion to disallow these unjustfied CASA regulations. The more people that contact their MP to support this, the more likely this will succeed.

[LeadSled]

This waffle about "charter maintenance standards" etc reminds of a conversation I once had with Roger Verney of Scone Air Maintenance many years ago. I owned and flew a Cessna 185 and said to Roger that if he felt that any additional safety benefit came with being maintained to "charter standards" I would be happy if he did so.
"Bill," he said "I do all and any maintenance that in my opinion the aircraft under my care require . I don't have a separate set of spanners for airline aircraft you know.. All you are missing out on are piles of unnecessary bull**** and paperwork."
Thank You Roger

Bill,

After all these years, you must have learned how to clean, gap and replace spark plugs to the more safe "air transport" standard, instead of the "ordinary" standard. Likewise how to check and top up the oil to "air transport" standards, obviously "much safer" (isn't it??) than just topping up the oil. Or the "air transport" more safe daily inspection, as opposed to the MM/Schedule 5 Daily.

Seriously, the lack of aviation operational expertise in CASA does not stop at the DAS/CEO. Check some of the other senior exec. bios.

Tootle pip!!

[Ironpot]

Guys - Just see it for what it is; they’re simply trying to justify their existence.

I would suggest that this contains nothing to onerous and is entirely in-line with Angel Flight’s existing rules in any case.

But ... where did the helicopter ban come from?

[Lead Balloon]

At estimates on 22 February Mr Carmody said:Our view is that community service flights have an accident/incident rate significantly higher than in private operations.Community service flights are private operations.

The circular nonsense that CASA trots out to justify its decisions messes with my head. It’s beyond Orwellian.

Does CASA really believe that the number of accidents in community services flights in Australia can reasonably be considered statistically significant? Really? Have they spoken to an expert in statistics or an actuary? Ever?

In 100% of cases involving fatalities in community service flights in Australia, the pilot in command was male. It inexorably follows that the regulatory standards for male pilots must be increased and more stringently enforced compared with those for non-male pilots. The statistics speak for themselves.

I don’t know why CASA just doesn’t tell the truth: This is a knee jerk reaction as a consequence of pressure from one quarter, which reaction will be disallowed as a consequences of pressure from another quarter.

This is what happens when you make the police the makers of the road rules and the speed limit.

[thorn bird]

"In 100% of cases involving fatalities in community service flights in Australia, the pilot in command was male. It inexorably follows that the regulatory standards for male pilots must be increased and more stringently enforced compared with those for non-male pilots. The statistics speak for themselves."

Wouldn't work Lead, if they tried, some males would just declare that they identify as gender neutral, and therefore immune from the imposts. The rest could claim CAsA has gender bias and sool the discrimination dept on to them.

[aroa]

Carbody spruiks their CSF mantra. I guess its the usual thing...say it often enough and it becomes the gospel truth.
No special rules for low time CPls and chtr when in FNQ there were 7 accidents and 21 fatalities over a short period, some years ago.
No noise and outrage or new rules over all that.That must just be accepted by CAsA as the chtr norm...accidents happen.!
PPLs of course are the real killers going by the "expertise" expressed in various venues.

[UnderneathTheRadar]

Looks like CASA have drastically wound back their proposal and issued Instrument 09/19 and a checklist for pilots. Requirements appear to be :

Pilot (for PPLs - there is another section for CPL/ATPL)

400 TT
250 PIC
25 Multi (if flying Multi)
1 landing last 30 days in same aircraft class (or type)
Class 1 or Class 2 (not Class 2 basic)
For IFR - 20 hours on type
For VFR - no night VFR & 10 hours on type


Aircraft

Registered
Not amateur built, limited or experimental
Annual inspection (no more than 12 months or 100 hours since last periodic inspection)


Passengers

No more than 5

Flight Notification

Must be to Airservices
Must have "CSF" in Remarks



None of this Charter or Airwork category stuff seems to have survived. The Flight Notification requirement will get interesting when FunFlight and others want to do a lap around the training area 20 times in a day!

Would appear to be a win for Angelflight and, dare I say it, common sense!

UTR

[mostlytossas]

Still think they should allow NVFR. At least allow pilots to get home same day. If they are really worried about it limit it up to say 90 to 120 minutes. No one is suggesting you fly NVFR 5 hours across the Simpson Desert or other remote regions.
There is nothing dangerous about NVFR if the pilot is rated for it and current. Currency is everything in any operation be it IFR, twins, etc.
Would the CASA people only travel by train after dark because driving at night is too dangerous? Didn't think so.

[UnderneathTheRadar]

You would have to assume that no NVFR is with the passengers aboard. For positioning flights to/from the CSF itself then the new rules surely can't apply.

The dramatic wind-back was the proposal that CHTR rules with regards to engine condition were going to be required - again something that appeared to have no relationship to the actual problems that had occurred.

[machtuk]

Since this new ruling came into effect a few days ago (if I recall) I wonder how many of these flights where not able to be fulfilled? I'd hazard a guess very few (if any!) Most pilots on their database would have beyond the new requirements anyway?
I believe it's a good thing, the maint angle was really of no benefit but the rest I agree with.
I really don't see what all the fuss was about, but that's my opinion!
There's a saying in the AeroMed business.....there's no point in killing several to save one!
It's a great service & will continue to be so despite all the doom & gloom!

[mostlytossas]

No I am not talking about positioning flights which can of course be done by NVFR with a new flight plan or even a flight note. This is the scenario I mean which I will use NSW as an example as that is the most populated state but it applies to any state and typical of a CSF.
Pilot lives and has his aircraft at Hay, passenger lives in Narranderra needs to go to Sydney for treatment. Trip there is in daylight( 6am departure arrive Bankstown say 8.15am). Passenger all day at say Westmead Hospital as an out patient. Arrives back at Bankstown at 5 pm for return trip. Pilot knows he can't get to Narranderra before last light. What does he do? Overnight in Sydney,or maybe Goulburn or Submit a new flight plan as a private NVFR to circumvent the new rules which defeats the whole purpose of CASA's new rules anyway.
If this pilot does the right thing and overnights then quite possibly declares to his wife, mates etc never again! "Costs me a fortune not only for the aircraft but accommodation ,meals,days work, etc" and is lost as a volunteer from that day on.
Of course he may not have ever taken on the trip in the first place knowing he would be stuck overnight.
All because CASA would not allow that last hour of flight after last light.
That is why I said in previous posts it will get harder to find volunteers especially outside daylight saving months.

[bentleg]

ATSB have lashed out at AngelFlight
https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/news-items/2019/community-service-flights/

AngelFlight's response.
http://angelflight.org.au/Angel_Flight_Response_to_ATSB_Report.pdf

Rather typical of ATSB I think...………..when the facts quoted don't stand up to scrutiny.

[short-field]

Federal court judgement can be found here:

https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/FCA//2021/469.html

[dysslexicgod]

Oh I see..... I can take little Timmy and his mother for a scenic flight around Mt. Hotham in my private aircraft. That is perfectly legal.

However on return to Porepuncka, Little Tim is bitten by a tiger snake in his backyard.

He faces a three quarter hour wait for an ambulance to arrive followed by another three quarter hour trip to Wangaratta base hospital. That is the nearest source of anti venom and pathology services to confirm it was a Tiger, not a Brown.

When Tim is bitten, my Lycoming is still warm and I haven't tied the aircraft down. The weather is CAVOK. Wangarratta aerodrome is 25 minutes away

However flying him to hospital would be a CS Flight - I'm not authorised by CASA to make a community service flight so little Tim has to take his chances.

However it would be an allowable private flight to fly the body to the undertaker, just not if Tim is alive.

[Clinton McKenzie]

Another sad day for aviation in Australia.

(I cannot help but laugh when I note references in the judgment to “Standard Form Recommendations” (SFRs). I invented the “Standard Form Recommendation” in CASA in 1998, as a piss-take!

I had a bunch of highly paid and intelligent direct-report managers who seemed to need guidance on how to get someone to make a thing called a ‘decision’. I thought: Yer kidding me?

So I spent 12 minutes inventing a form. I called it: “The Standard Form Recommendation”. It required ‘complex’ stuff like an explanation of what decision was being sought, and why, supporting evidence and draft documents to give effect to the decision, if the delegate accepted the recommendation. I thought it would be a not-so-gentle hint that would embarrass the managers into using their own brains and initiative to get to the desired outcome.

But no: There are SFRs referenced, over 20 years later, in a Federal Court judgment about a CASA decision!

I (continue to) despair.

In another life I invented the “Very Poor Form Form”, in an attempt to get people to understand that just because someone’s ‘pet idea’ is encapsulated in a grandiose looking form with impressive legal language, does not turn the Form into binding gospel. This time around I’ll claim breach of my moral rights if I see it referenced, without the user having attributed my authorship, in a Federal Court judgment.)

[Bull at a Gate]

Dysslexicgod, I suggest you read para 133 of the judgment. Taking Timmy to hospital after he was bitten would not be a community service flight for many reasons, the most obvious being that the flight is not coordinated, arranged or facilitated by an entity for a charitable purpose or community service purpose.