CASA now wants to control community flights what next
Sorry Creamy
Should have added that the apointment is to design, construct and operate a new framework.
Was thinking CAA would have one they could take down off the shelf.
Should have added that the apointment is to design, construct and operate a new framework.
Was thinking CAA would have one they could take down off the shelf.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What is different to young billy PPL taking a few mates on a flight or taking a sick person to hospital? They are private flights.
What CAsA is suggesting is Angel Flight should apply for and be granted a "Claytons" AOC. Given the multitude of different types used for these flights, everything from 172's to corporate jets, a couple of million should cover it, and one or two years of pissing about, getting all the various "Expert" FOI's to agree what should be in the manuals and how the aircraft should be flown.
Last time I looked which was a while ago, the NSW air Ambo king airs were costing the guv mint $8,000 an hour, at that time I could charter a Falcon 900 for that.
Sad but maybe Angel flight could change to Angel drive and find a few volunteers to drive people to hospital. Subsequent road deaths could be attributed to a minister who has stated he has no control over CAsA. One thing for sure the DAS and his predecessor, who I'm sure dreamt this up, will have blood on their hands, not that they would give a damn.
What CAsA is suggesting is Angel Flight should apply for and be granted a "Claytons" AOC. Given the multitude of different types used for these flights, everything from 172's to corporate jets, a couple of million should cover it, and one or two years of pissing about, getting all the various "Expert" FOI's to agree what should be in the manuals and how the aircraft should be flown.
Last time I looked which was a while ago, the NSW air Ambo king airs were costing the guv mint $8,000 an hour, at that time I could charter a Falcon 900 for that.
Sad but maybe Angel flight could change to Angel drive and find a few volunteers to drive people to hospital. Subsequent road deaths could be attributed to a minister who has stated he has no control over CAsA. One thing for sure the DAS and his predecessor, who I'm sure dreamt this up, will have blood on their hands, not that they would give a damn.
Cleared to enter:
I will try to explain. Basically it is the same reason as dictatorships always shut down religions. and any alternate form of organisation - they represent a threat to the established order.
CASA sees Angel Flight as a threat because it provides a focus for private pilots that may one day threaten CASAs god given right to do with us as they please because It raises the profile of private aviation in the eyes of the general public.
To put it another way, when CASA takes your licence or grounds your aircraft, the general public don't give a damn - you are just some rich silvertail getting what they deserve.
CASA's nightmare is a group of private pilots sticking up for their rights - standing up to CASA, with the general public behind them and that is what Angel Flight could threaten to be.
To put that another way, any aviation organisation that is independent of CASA is a threat to its omnipotence. RAA, SAAA etc. are NOT a threat precisely because they are required to be subservient to CASA in order to exist. Make trouble and the "exemption" that allows you to live disappears.
Its very clear Angel Flight must bow down to CASA or be destroyed. CASA is attacking Angel Flight by trying to define a new category of operations somewhere between private and charter that requires regulation.
To put it yet another way, any aviation activity that does not require CASA intervention must not be allowed to exist. If Angel Flight continues, they reason, all sorts of other forms of self organising aviation activity could follow.
CASA has decided to shut Angel Flight down. That much is obvious...........
Why would they want to do that?
Why would they want to do that?
CASA sees Angel Flight as a threat because it provides a focus for private pilots that may one day threaten CASAs god given right to do with us as they please because It raises the profile of private aviation in the eyes of the general public.
To put it another way, when CASA takes your licence or grounds your aircraft, the general public don't give a damn - you are just some rich silvertail getting what they deserve.
CASA's nightmare is a group of private pilots sticking up for their rights - standing up to CASA, with the general public behind them and that is what Angel Flight could threaten to be.
To put that another way, any aviation organisation that is independent of CASA is a threat to its omnipotence. RAA, SAAA etc. are NOT a threat precisely because they are required to be subservient to CASA in order to exist. Make trouble and the "exemption" that allows you to live disappears.
Its very clear Angel Flight must bow down to CASA or be destroyed. CASA is attacking Angel Flight by trying to define a new category of operations somewhere between private and charter that requires regulation.
To put it yet another way, any aviation activity that does not require CASA intervention must not be allowed to exist. If Angel Flight continues, they reason, all sorts of other forms of self organising aviation activity could follow.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Trouble is they make the regulations, and police the regulations, and prosecute the regulations, then appeal to the last cent in the taxpayers purse to defend any decision that goes against them in the AAT. (CAsA don't like real Courts).
If we relieve them of the prosecution phase because it's "blameable" on DPP, who it should be outsourced to, leave the policing to the Federal Police who are good at that sort of thing, we may have something actionable by objection via the "discovery"/ NPRM process.
Once their wings are clipped to this point you can argue the NZ Regs and reform the regulator and the regulatory review process in one go.
Oh, and rid the planet of the AAT and Commonwealth Ombudsman who I believe have been compromised. The ICC is a joke and should be treated as such. One more thing, give the DAS job to Mike Smith.
If we relieve them of the prosecution phase because it's "blameable" on DPP, who it should be outsourced to, leave the policing to the Federal Police who are good at that sort of thing, we may have something actionable by objection via the "discovery"/ NPRM process.
Once their wings are clipped to this point you can argue the NZ Regs and reform the regulator and the regulatory review process in one go.
Oh, and rid the planet of the AAT and Commonwealth Ombudsman who I believe have been compromised. The ICC is a joke and should be treated as such. One more thing, give the DAS job to Mike Smith.
Back of Burke perspective.
From the Daily Liberal..
:
Fears for future of Angel Flight
By NADINE MORTON
Sept. 26, 2014, 10 a.m.
THE end of Angel Flight is inevitable if the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) has its way, according to Graeme Burke, who has flown for the charity for the past 15 years.
THE end of Angel Flight is inevitable if the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) has its way, according to Graeme Burke, who has flown for the charity for the past 15 years.
CASA has put forward a discussion paper on safety in “community service flights” for public comment, and new safety standards and regulatory constraints are included.
Mr Burke fears the worst.
Angel Flight works across regional and rural Australia to provide free non-emergency flights for people facing bad health, poor finances and long distances.
Mr Burke has volunteered his time, his plane, and his fuel to the charity over the 15 years, and said he has real fears the charity will be “devastated” if the changes are implemented.
“The discussion paper’s no more than a smoke screen,” he said.
“I just think they’ve already made their decision ... if they implement all these changes that’ll be the end.”
Angel Flight chief executive officer and founder Bill Bristow said the CASA discussion paper has caused fear and concern in the charity and among its volunteers.
“[It] will force Angel Flight to take full responsibility for training [their] 2800 pilots, and be accountable for their planes and aircraft maintenance,” he said.
“We would have to cease as a charity and become a bureaucratic aviation organisation.”
Mr Burke believes an Angel Flight accident on August 15, 2011 in Victoria that killed three people could also have contributed to CASA’s proposed safety changes.
“When people were killed in Victoria doing an Angel Flight, I thought then ‘this will be the death of it all’,” he said.
While some changes to standards were enforced by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau following the fatal accident, Mr Burke said society’s “path of litigation” has also had an impact.
“It’s just a very, very sad way we seem to be going, we hide behind safety ... it’s just overboard, we’re strangling ourselves in red tape.”
While the deadline for all community submissions is October 10, 2014, Mr Bristow said this means they are being asked to continue flights under a “dark cloud of uncertainty”.
CASA rejected suggestions it is proposing to impose “crippling red tape” on community service flight operators.
They say the discussion paper was released so the public can understand the aviation safety standards currently provided on community service flights and consider whether there may be alternative ways of managing safety more effectively.
Nell’s fight for Angel Flight
Ps LOL when I saw the pilot's name, perhaps candidate for IOS spokesperson..
Angel Flight concerned about families potentially affected by new flight safety standards
MTF...
:Fears for future of Angel Flight
By NADINE MORTON
Sept. 26, 2014, 10 a.m.
THE end of Angel Flight is inevitable if the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) has its way, according to Graeme Burke, who has flown for the charity for the past 15 years.
THE end of Angel Flight is inevitable if the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) has its way, according to Graeme Burke, who has flown for the charity for the past 15 years.
CASA has put forward a discussion paper on safety in “community service flights” for public comment, and new safety standards and regulatory constraints are included.
Mr Burke fears the worst.
Angel Flight works across regional and rural Australia to provide free non-emergency flights for people facing bad health, poor finances and long distances.
Mr Burke has volunteered his time, his plane, and his fuel to the charity over the 15 years, and said he has real fears the charity will be “devastated” if the changes are implemented.
“The discussion paper’s no more than a smoke screen,” he said.
“I just think they’ve already made their decision ... if they implement all these changes that’ll be the end.”
Angel Flight chief executive officer and founder Bill Bristow said the CASA discussion paper has caused fear and concern in the charity and among its volunteers.
“[It] will force Angel Flight to take full responsibility for training [their] 2800 pilots, and be accountable for their planes and aircraft maintenance,” he said.
“We would have to cease as a charity and become a bureaucratic aviation organisation.”
Mr Burke believes an Angel Flight accident on August 15, 2011 in Victoria that killed three people could also have contributed to CASA’s proposed safety changes.
“When people were killed in Victoria doing an Angel Flight, I thought then ‘this will be the death of it all’,” he said.
While some changes to standards were enforced by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau following the fatal accident, Mr Burke said society’s “path of litigation” has also had an impact.
“It’s just a very, very sad way we seem to be going, we hide behind safety ... it’s just overboard, we’re strangling ourselves in red tape.”
While the deadline for all community submissions is October 10, 2014, Mr Bristow said this means they are being asked to continue flights under a “dark cloud of uncertainty”.
CASA rejected suggestions it is proposing to impose “crippling red tape” on community service flight operators.
They say the discussion paper was released so the public can understand the aviation safety standards currently provided on community service flights and consider whether there may be alternative ways of managing safety more effectively.
Nell’s fight for Angel Flight
Ps LOL when I saw the pilot's name, perhaps candidate for IOS spokesperson..
Angel Flight concerned about families potentially affected by new flight safety standards
MTF...
Last edited by Sarcs; 27th Sep 2014 at 00:20.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Deja vue??
Infamous statement by senior CAsA director
"If I had my way the only aircraft operating in Australian skies would be RPT and the RAAF".
Thin edge of the wedge??
By attacking Angel Flight is CAsA actually saying ALL private aviation is unsafe??
Short step from there to a discussion paper on "should all private flying be banned" because its unsafe.
One things for sure CAsA's crock of sh#t reg's don't make it any safer!!
Infamous statement by senior CAsA director
"If I had my way the only aircraft operating in Australian skies would be RPT and the RAAF".
Thin edge of the wedge??
By attacking Angel Flight is CAsA actually saying ALL private aviation is unsafe??
Short step from there to a discussion paper on "should all private flying be banned" because its unsafe.
One things for sure CAsA's crock of sh#t reg's don't make it any safer!!
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
He's changed a bit since I last saw him.
Last edited by Frank Arouet; 27th Sep 2014 at 07:14. Reason: CAsA media bloke doesn't need medication to do his job.
PG rating still standing!
The real PG rating stands up at about 01:15 on this MSN news video segment where he makes an appearance sprouting some more weasel words...
New regulations could cripple Angel Flight Although in this Prime 7 news segment a couple of weeks later PG talks but only has a mugshot posted so you can't tell if his lips are moving or if indeed it is really PG...
Concerns over future of Angel Flight
New regulations could cripple Angel Flight Although in this Prime 7 news segment a couple of weeks later PG talks but only has a mugshot posted so you can't tell if his lips are moving or if indeed it is really PG...
Concerns over future of Angel Flight
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: An Island
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Angel flt
well they could get their volunteers to register their A/c in NZ,Caymans or Vanuatu..leaves Casa out of it...for the time being until the confusion runs more rampant.
Sprucegoose
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Hughes Point, where life is great! Was also resident on page 13, but now I'm lost in Cyberspace....
Age: 59
Posts: 3,485
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
The fundamental, chronic problem in Australia is that governments continue to leave it to the regulatory authority to drive the development of the regulatory regime the regulator administers, including the regulator’s own role in that regime. Surprise, surprise: The regulator’s response to any and every perceived problem is more regulation and more expensive interactions with the regulator.
With regard to Angel Flight I'm a little torn. Firstly anyone who needs urgent medical transport within Australia gets it, simple as that. So the people Angel Flight are transporting, are basically people who require air transport for convenience purposes. If that is the case, should the standard not be at least equivalent to 'charter' standard (or air transport under 119)?
Is there room for these type of flights to be included under the NPRM for aero-medical operations? Perhaps under a separate section for 'community flights'.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Question 1. is of course, who pays??.
The cost burden of regulation has already driven the cost of aviation to unaffordable levels. The Guv mint of course should subsidise these flights, its their screwed up regulations that make aviation so expensive.
Fat chance of that, not enough votes.
Question 2. Would a convoluted mass of red tape make it any safer than it is?
very doubtful.
Question3. By shutting community charities down completely make it any safer?.
Depends whether you believe its safer to drive than travel in a private aircraft.
This same propersition came up in the US, their versions of Angel Flight make out look like kiddies in a sand pit.
The FAA came to the conclusion that to regulate would drive up the costs so it became unaffordable, which would drive people onto the roads which was decidedly not as safe as private flights, so they left well enough alone.
Unfortunately the dipsticks who run our regulator cannot leave well enough alone.
Road statistics are not down to them so why should they worry, they don't care how many die on the roads, or because they can't get timely medical care.
Their entire focus is on next years bonus, nose in the trough, safety has nothing to do with it.
The cost burden of regulation has already driven the cost of aviation to unaffordable levels. The Guv mint of course should subsidise these flights, its their screwed up regulations that make aviation so expensive.
Fat chance of that, not enough votes.
Question 2. Would a convoluted mass of red tape make it any safer than it is?
very doubtful.
Question3. By shutting community charities down completely make it any safer?.
Depends whether you believe its safer to drive than travel in a private aircraft.
This same propersition came up in the US, their versions of Angel Flight make out look like kiddies in a sand pit.
The FAA came to the conclusion that to regulate would drive up the costs so it became unaffordable, which would drive people onto the roads which was decidedly not as safe as private flights, so they left well enough alone.
Unfortunately the dipsticks who run our regulator cannot leave well enough alone.
Road statistics are not down to them so why should they worry, they don't care how many die on the roads, or because they can't get timely medical care.
Their entire focus is on next years bonus, nose in the trough, safety has nothing to do with it.
Or are they thinking they'd like some kind of de facto AOC imposed on private flights generally? Who knows. But it stinks.
Some time ago, CASA proposed "Private AOCs" for all private operation, with the exception of the owner of the aircraft (yes, owner, not operator), with any passengers limited to the immediate family of the aircraft owner.
Indeed, the proposal was so extreme that even the senior management at the time, would not wear it.
As we see so often with CASA, it is really hard to kill a bad idea.
Shafting Angel Flight was just a new version of the "private AOC" lunacy.
its been fixed
It's been fixed. For now.
And I'd suggest the various individuals that, and associations which, made submissions objecting to the proposal should share some of the credit for the outcome with Ms Pagani.
And I'd suggest the various individuals that, and associations which, made submissions objecting to the proposal should share some of the credit for the outcome with Ms Pagani.
"CAsA relents..."
So says the header in Fridays Oz Aviation pages....
More like the tossers realized they were on a hiding to nowhere with a lot of bad publicity as well so they finally had to pull their collective heads in.
One only has to wonder at the colossal cost of this whole stupid exercise in money and time...for what ?? To create /justify continuing "employment"??
The casa "code of conduct" (sic) says employees are not to waste taxpayers money...but who's listening.
In Fort Fumble pissing taxpayers dollars against the wall is a way of life..who cares.? Any of those charged with "governance"?...hardly.
Ms Pagani has a last word..."these were changes for no good reason"
Sound familiar?
Good result from Ms Pagani and all those complainants.
We need more of it. Long past time to tell CAsA where to get off.
More like the tossers realized they were on a hiding to nowhere with a lot of bad publicity as well so they finally had to pull their collective heads in.
One only has to wonder at the colossal cost of this whole stupid exercise in money and time...for what ?? To create /justify continuing "employment"??
The casa "code of conduct" (sic) says employees are not to waste taxpayers money...but who's listening.
In Fort Fumble pissing taxpayers dollars against the wall is a way of life..who cares.? Any of those charged with "governance"?...hardly.
Ms Pagani has a last word..."these were changes for no good reason"
Sound familiar?
Good result from Ms Pagani and all those complainants.
We need more of it. Long past time to tell CAsA where to get off.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Congratulations Ms Pagani.
A win, but I fear not the end.
Rule 101 with CAsA is they are never wrong, even when they are wrong.
Think John Quadrio.
Destroyed him financially, drove him to the point of self harm, destroyed his marriage, and they knew they were wrong.
There is a rumor Farkwitson spat the dummy over the decision to desist. You simply cannot win against the "Iron Ring".
I expect they will circle the wagons then find another way to get their way.
A win, but I fear not the end.
Rule 101 with CAsA is they are never wrong, even when they are wrong.
Think John Quadrio.
Destroyed him financially, drove him to the point of self harm, destroyed his marriage, and they knew they were wrong.
There is a rumor Farkwitson spat the dummy over the decision to desist. You simply cannot win against the "Iron Ring".
I expect they will circle the wagons then find another way to get their way.
It's been fixed. For now.
And I'd suggest the various individuals that, and associations which, made submissions objecting to the proposal should share some of the credit for the outcome with Ms Pagani.
And I'd suggest the various individuals that, and associations which, made submissions objecting to the proposal should share some of the credit for the outcome with Ms Pagani.
Agreed, this was one of the few occasions where a significant number of individuals and some of the associations actually did something useful, instead of just sitting on their collective arses and barking.
However, major credit should probably go to Bill Bristow, who really "rallied the troops".
I love your "for now", as I said in a previous post,within CASA it is almost impossible to kill a bad idea, look at the Part 132 NPRM.
Tootle pip!!
