CASA now wants to control community flights what next
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Squawkie
Long time no see.
The problem with trying to analyse which is statistically better is that the spread of standards means that many highly proficient and safe private operators will be statistically brought down by the cowboys.
you can also say that about the commercial AOC holders too, but the trouble is knowing if the ratio of cowboys has been compared correctly.
Flying like motorcycle riding has some dangers however when you are careful about mitigating risks and removing cowboy antics from the equation, it gets very low risk all of a sudden.
The one fatality was a classic case of stupidity in my mind, and that was pretty evident from the day after it happened.
Ozbusdriver has quite rightly pointed out that a CPL and anAOC are no weapon against the same thing.
The problem with trying to analyse which is statistically better is that the spread of standards means that many highly proficient and safe private operators will be statistically brought down by the cowboys.
you can also say that about the commercial AOC holders too, but the trouble is knowing if the ratio of cowboys has been compared correctly.
Flying like motorcycle riding has some dangers however when you are careful about mitigating risks and removing cowboy antics from the equation, it gets very low risk all of a sudden.
The one fatality was a classic case of stupidity in my mind, and that was pretty evident from the day after it happened.
Ozbusdriver has quite rightly pointed out that a CPL and anAOC are no weapon against the same thing.
Changed mind
...on the weight of the arguments presented I am prepared to stop being a smug git, climb off my high horse and agree with Jaba et al.
The imposition of more rules will be an ineffective brake on such behaviour as would kill an Angel Flight pilot and his pax. If the threat of an imminent, violent and possibly firey death is not enough to dissuade you then I guess nothing will.
The wise counsel of a good Chief Pilot would have prevented many an accident. For the commercial operators there is a time when we must relax the apron strings and let the kids go for themselves... but we hae supervised them closely up to that point.
In reality, the answer to everything in Australia is more bloody rules (don't forget Julia's sole achievement is passing more bloody rules in a given period of time than any other government in history! God help us).
But in a dream world...
...for an operation such as Angel Flight, is it possible to have some sort of mentor/Chief Pilot/Dispatcher/Co-pilot-by-telephone to validate a pilot's decision to depart into anything other than Day VMC?
...could that be workable?
I dunno, I have never done Angel Flights.
More regulation is not the answer.
The imposition of more rules will be an ineffective brake on such behaviour as would kill an Angel Flight pilot and his pax. If the threat of an imminent, violent and possibly firey death is not enough to dissuade you then I guess nothing will.
The wise counsel of a good Chief Pilot would have prevented many an accident. For the commercial operators there is a time when we must relax the apron strings and let the kids go for themselves... but we hae supervised them closely up to that point.
In reality, the answer to everything in Australia is more bloody rules (don't forget Julia's sole achievement is passing more bloody rules in a given period of time than any other government in history! God help us).
But in a dream world...
...for an operation such as Angel Flight, is it possible to have some sort of mentor/Chief Pilot/Dispatcher/Co-pilot-by-telephone to validate a pilot's decision to depart into anything other than Day VMC?
...could that be workable?
I dunno, I have never done Angel Flights.
More regulation is not the answer.
...for an operation such as Angel Flight, is it possible to have some sort of mentor/Chief Pilot/Dispatcher/Co-pilot-by-telephone to validate a pilot's decision to depart into anything other than Day VMC?
Nice idea? CASA prohibited it because the "coaches" were not qualified instructors.
In my experience doing Angel Flights, the AF dispatcher will not help with a decision except that they err on the side of not going if you are vacillating. I have found them to be hugely supportive if you decide not to fly.
Angel flight already have tougher qualification & currency requirements than many parachute or scenic flight ops. There is no evidence of problems with Angel Flight.
On the other hand, the Horsham accident showed flaws with CASA's licencing, the provision of forecasts and raised questions about the provision of air traffic services / flight following.
These are the issues that should get scrutiny - not "community flights".
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: AU
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here's a thought:
Potentially, if CAsA 'kill' these organisations, more patients may be killed either through forcing their parents/partners or even themselves to make long, tiring, dangerous trips by car, perhaps through the night to seek medical treatment or by simply not being able to travel as often anymore and going without frequent treatment, than those which may be killed by an "unsafe pilot/aircraft"??
Or maybe that's the idea?
Deaths that aren't affiliated with aviation are someone else's problem??
Safe lies.....oops I meant skies
Potentially, if CAsA 'kill' these organisations, more patients may be killed either through forcing their parents/partners or even themselves to make long, tiring, dangerous trips by car, perhaps through the night to seek medical treatment or by simply not being able to travel as often anymore and going without frequent treatment, than those which may be killed by an "unsafe pilot/aircraft"??
Or maybe that's the idea?
Deaths that aren't affiliated with aviation are someone else's problem??
Safe lies.....oops I meant skies
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: rangaville
Posts: 2,280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Horatio, it's not about being a smug git! It's also not about more regulation. It's about a decent mentoring system & perhaps a more stringent recency & monitoring system.
It's about a decent mentoring system & perhaps a more stringent recency & monitoring system.
Safety boots
Safety jacket
Safety gloves
Safety meetings
Safety programs
Safety policies
Regulate this, regulate that, control this control that, all in the name of safety
It all makes me want to puke. About time people took more responsibility for themselves.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Greta
Age: 67
Posts: 184
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having all the top of the class ratings and big twins is not really a sure fire way of getting you there. i remember a air ambo king air and queensland rescue helicopter going in and probably a few more as well.
Common sense and a regular nudge to use it is probably all that's needed.
Common sense and a regular nudge to use it is probably all that's needed.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Still in Paradise
Age: 60
Posts: 861
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
queensland rescue helicopter going in
The EMS helicopter crashes in Qld were in fact Private / AWK Ops, in SE aircraft, where the analysis of the events concluded that they were the result of poor organisational structures, real or perceived pressure to undertake the 'missions', and failures to recognise operational limitations.
There are real or perceived pressures to undertake the 'missions', and operational limitations to manage in angel flight tasks, some pilots will manage those issues better than others.
The theory that the angel flight roster is filled with older drivers and is therefore somehow safer does not stack up in my view - the Horsham pilot I believe had been flying for 30 years or something? But at 10 hours a year? (haven't read the report lately, so feel free to correct those numbers).
The whole private / charity / community service thing is a vexed issue that I think warrants examination, but the heavy hand of CASA...... dunno.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One thing is fairly certain.
If CAsA try and regulate it, the cost burden will make the whole Angel Flight concept untenable.
CAsA are simply incapable of writing regulations that work. A very cynical old man once told me that was in the bureaucrats handbook. Never write rules that work because then they would not need to employ more people to amend them, or employ more lawyers to interpret them.
Look no further than the rest of the aviation industry, and in particular GA to see the result of unfettered bureaucracy in action.
They have promoted themselves very cleverly as the Champions of "Joe public", manipulated the "mystic" of safety to such an extent that the average punter and the politicians are convinced, anyone involved in aviation is a homicidal lunatic hell bent on wiping out the entire population.
Can anyone remember when CAsA had anything "Positive" to say about Aviation?
I sure cant, nothing but negatives, with them in shining armour protecting Joe Public from us.
Angel Flight in the USA is huge, by comparison, our operation is insignificant.
The FAA was wise enough to let it alone, because they realised the alternative was people taking to the road.
CAsA would take the view that people dying on the road was a good thing because it would not reflect on them.
If CAsA try and regulate it, the cost burden will make the whole Angel Flight concept untenable.
CAsA are simply incapable of writing regulations that work. A very cynical old man once told me that was in the bureaucrats handbook. Never write rules that work because then they would not need to employ more people to amend them, or employ more lawyers to interpret them.
Look no further than the rest of the aviation industry, and in particular GA to see the result of unfettered bureaucracy in action.
They have promoted themselves very cleverly as the Champions of "Joe public", manipulated the "mystic" of safety to such an extent that the average punter and the politicians are convinced, anyone involved in aviation is a homicidal lunatic hell bent on wiping out the entire population.
Can anyone remember when CAsA had anything "Positive" to say about Aviation?
I sure cant, nothing but negatives, with them in shining armour protecting Joe Public from us.
Angel Flight in the USA is huge, by comparison, our operation is insignificant.
The FAA was wise enough to let it alone, because they realised the alternative was people taking to the road.
CAsA would take the view that people dying on the road was a good thing because it would not reflect on them.
Look no further than the rest of the aviation industry, and in particular GA to see the result of unfettered bureaucracy in action.
No need to bang your head on a wall Jack, I left school for the building sites of the 70's. Surely you have learned by now that self harm is pointless.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Wentworth
Age: 59
Posts: 212
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.
http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/4462266...-100_final.pdf
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.
http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/4462266...-100_final.pdf
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: SoCal
Posts: 1,929
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does anyone know how this is handled in the USA , Canada and Europe?
Longer answer:
Europe - all air ambulance flights are flown by professional crews (unless repatriating, mostly helos, the distances to the nearest hospital A&E aren't great enough)
USA - there is something similar, but AFAIK again flown by professional crews (it's mainly biz jet owners donating time in their aircraft)
Canada - no idea
Short answer - it isn't.
Angel Flight West | Angel Flight West is a nonprofit, volunteer-driven organization that arranges free, non-emergency air travel for children and adults with serious medical conditions and other compelling needs.
- AngelFlight.com ? People Helping People in Need
The US based AOPA provides support for charitable flights:
Guide to Charitable/Nonprofit/Community Event Sightseeing Flights - AOPA
Its all quite well organised, and anyone who is familiar with the Australian operation knows that it revised its pilot qualification & recency protocols some years ago based on its leaning from the US organisations.
Folks,
This has all the hallmarks of the usual CASA approach, a solution in search of a problem.
Funnily enough, CASA reported to the Forsyth review that all the recommendations of the Hawke Report were being implemented, including Byron's Directive 1 of 2007.
As far as I can see, nothing could be further from the truth, and I certainly can't find 1/2007 of anything like it on the CASA web site.
Just to remind you, this 1/2007 required comprehensive risk analysis to determine if, as a last resort (not the first) any regulatory action was to be needed. Then that proposed regulatory action had to be fully cost/benefit justified.
Something similar is going on with executive flying, where CASA want to impose all the elements of a AOC on what are now private operations --- with an impeccable safety record.
Tootle pip!!
This has all the hallmarks of the usual CASA approach, a solution in search of a problem.
Funnily enough, CASA reported to the Forsyth review that all the recommendations of the Hawke Report were being implemented, including Byron's Directive 1 of 2007.
As far as I can see, nothing could be further from the truth, and I certainly can't find 1/2007 of anything like it on the CASA web site.
Just to remind you, this 1/2007 required comprehensive risk analysis to determine if, as a last resort (not the first) any regulatory action was to be needed. Then that proposed regulatory action had to be fully cost/benefit justified.
Something similar is going on with executive flying, where CASA want to impose all the elements of a AOC on what are now private operations --- with an impeccable safety record.
Tootle pip!!
The fundamental and chronic structural problem here is that CASA is simply not competent to make the decisions that have to be made in order to build a coherent classification of operations scheme.
How many lives are saved by Angel Flight and lost by Angel Flight, operating in accordance with the current rules? Where is the proof of a causal link between changing the rules and changing the lives saved and lost?
If the rules were changed so as to prevent Angel Flights that would otherwise have been permitted under the current rules, how many lives will be lost that would otherwise have been saved, and how many lives will be saved that would otherwise have been lost? What would the cost be to continue the same number of Angel Flights but at a different standard?
What is the cost of transport, by road, of persons who would otherwise have been carried on Angel Flights? Is that cost in excess of the cost of carrying those persons on Angel Flights? Would it be more cost effective to carry medical experts to the patient? Would it be more cost effective to build more hospitals?
CASA is simply not competent to assess or decide the relevant risks, costs or benefits, and is not competent to decide where to set the balance.
It’s like making the police responsible for the road toll and giving them power to determine the speed limit. The police don’t have the power or budget to build better roads, so what response would we expect to road accidents.
That’s one of the reasons Australia has the ever-growing regulatory Frankenstein it has in aviation.
(Notice I didn’t say “incompetent”: I said “not competent”. There is an important difference. It wouldn’t matter who CASA employed: CASA will never be competent to make the decisions that have to be made in order to build a coherent classification of operations scheme.)
How many lives are saved by Angel Flight and lost by Angel Flight, operating in accordance with the current rules? Where is the proof of a causal link between changing the rules and changing the lives saved and lost?
If the rules were changed so as to prevent Angel Flights that would otherwise have been permitted under the current rules, how many lives will be lost that would otherwise have been saved, and how many lives will be saved that would otherwise have been lost? What would the cost be to continue the same number of Angel Flights but at a different standard?
What is the cost of transport, by road, of persons who would otherwise have been carried on Angel Flights? Is that cost in excess of the cost of carrying those persons on Angel Flights? Would it be more cost effective to carry medical experts to the patient? Would it be more cost effective to build more hospitals?
CASA is simply not competent to assess or decide the relevant risks, costs or benefits, and is not competent to decide where to set the balance.
It’s like making the police responsible for the road toll and giving them power to determine the speed limit. The police don’t have the power or budget to build better roads, so what response would we expect to road accidents.
That’s one of the reasons Australia has the ever-growing regulatory Frankenstein it has in aviation.
(Notice I didn’t say “incompetent”: I said “not competent”. There is an important difference. It wouldn’t matter who CASA employed: CASA will never be competent to make the decisions that have to be made in order to build a coherent classification of operations scheme.)
Last edited by Creampuff; 20th Aug 2014 at 08:17.
