CASA now wants to control community flights what next
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: rangaville
Posts: 2,280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is a discussion paper only, so you have the opportunity to have these comments included to balance what CASA want
CASA have nominated some preferences which seem to me to mainly move liability from CASA to the people carrying out the service.
If you look at the Horsham crash and the workload of the pilot that day, and the decisions he made, you'd have to say AF has elements of commercial requirements.
The ATSB report mentions ten North American organisations doing similar work and found one required a course to mitigate pressure and manage risk, one required all flights to be daytime VFR, and three required pilots to be instrument rated - all a bit haphazard, but being a DP you've got the opportunity of getting something sensible on paper. As someone mentioned there have probably been other incidents in addition to the Horsham crash.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: S37.54 E145.11
Posts: 639
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Angel Flight USA
It should be highlighted that flight qualifications and experience for Angel Flight pilots in the US vary widely from region to region with most AF organisations requiring pilots to have a current instrument rating. Go to:
Pilot Information | Angel Flight
Angel Flight East
Qualification Requirements
Pilots - AngelFlight.com ? People Helping People in Need
http://www.angelflightne.org/images/...quirements.pdf
Compared to the US I think CASA's approach appears fairly restrained.
Pilot Information | Angel Flight
Angel Flight East
Qualification Requirements
Pilots - AngelFlight.com ? People Helping People in Need
http://www.angelflightne.org/images/...quirements.pdf
Compared to the US I think CASA's approach appears fairly restrained.
And naturally we wouldn't do some research to find out whether the accident and incident rates are any different as between the AF operations in the USA conducted by pilots with CIRs and those without.
Heaven forbid anyone would analyse the available data.
Heaven forbid anyone would analyse the available data.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Creamie, if CAsA regulated angel flight out of existence.
From a purely legal perspective, could they be exposed legally, if someone got killed being transported by road?
From a purely legal perspective, could they be exposed legally, if someone got killed being transported by road?
Of course not. "Someone else" killed them.
The political aim of all governments and government agencies is to blame "someone else" and hope the punters fall for it.
In Australia, it's a very safe bet, although the punters seem to be slowly waking up to it.
I set very high standards for my medical-related flights: Transport Category certified aircraft only, and only to airports with CAT III ILS. Zero accidents so far. Therefore, that's obviously where the regulatory standard should be set. Surely.
The political aim of all governments and government agencies is to blame "someone else" and hope the punters fall for it.
In Australia, it's a very safe bet, although the punters seem to be slowly waking up to it.
I set very high standards for my medical-related flights: Transport Category certified aircraft only, and only to airports with CAT III ILS. Zero accidents so far. Therefore, that's obviously where the regulatory standard should be set. Surely.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: rangaville
Posts: 2,280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And far be it for a regulator to be proactive & try & protect the travelling public from a system they know nothing about, at least educate them!
Interestingly, Angel Flight don't allow me to transport their 'customers' in my aircraft even though it's IFR category & I'm qualified to fly a Cat III ILS (Grade 2 Instructor with Instrument Training Approval & Current ME-CIR)
They must be doing some risk assessment for their operation?
Interestingly, Angel Flight don't allow me to transport their 'customers' in my aircraft even though it's IFR category & I'm qualified to fly a Cat III ILS (Grade 2 Instructor with Instrument Training Approval & Current ME-CIR)
They must be doing some risk assessment for their operation?
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Skipton
Age: 19
Posts: 173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Interestingly, Angel Flight don't allow me to transport their 'customers' in my aircraft even though it's IFR category & I'm qualified to fly a Cat III ILS (Grade 2 Instructor with Instrument Training Approval & Current ME-CIR)"
Why?
Why?
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: rangaville
Posts: 2,280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not winding up anybody. The views I express are genuine. I don't believe that 250 hour pilots (or whatever the requirements were) should be transporting people to and from medical appointments with the implied pressure that goes with it.
If my views offend anyone, what can I say? Precious? I doubt my views will be taken into account & to tell you the truth I couldn't give rats arse
If my views offend anyone, what can I say? Precious? I doubt my views will be taken into account & to tell you the truth I couldn't give rats arse
Jack, I think the question is harder to put. It is one of confidence more than competence. How can you tick that box when the CASA only knows how to test to forklift driver standard.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: rangaville
Posts: 2,280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OZ, I'm all for risk assessment. I know what I was like at 250 hours 
A fresh CPL at 250 hours, working for a flying organisation has the benefit of guidance from a Chief Pilot. A 250 hour pilot conducting an angel flight has the benefit of guidance from who?
If Angel Flight has excluded experimental aircraft from their operations they are obviously conducting risk assessment (and good on them). Surely it doesn't hurt to be proactive and talk to CAsA and nut out a responsible solution?
A fresh CPL at 250 hours, working for a flying organisation has the benefit of guidance from a Chief Pilot. A 250 hour pilot conducting an angel flight has the benefit of guidance from who?
If Angel Flight has excluded experimental aircraft from their operations they are obviously conducting risk assessment (and good on them). Surely it doesn't hurt to be proactive and talk to CAsA and nut out a responsible solution?
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Goolwa
Age: 59
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why does it have to be the Regulatory Body that has to come up with the requirements? Why can't Angel Flight do their own risk assessment (which they appear to be doing) and leave it at that, which it seems to be how the FAA and the various AF organisations in the USA have handled it. Why do we need more laws, red tape & bureaucracy?