Community service flights new rules
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Charter Maintenance Standards
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," 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
Last edited by Bill Pike; 17th Feb 2019 at 01:40. Reason: typo
Senator Rex Patrick SA from the Centre Alliance Party will move to disallow CASA’s new rules. Media release below.
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.
Centre Alliance Moves to Stop Angel Flights Wings being Clipped: Disallowance Motions to be Lodged to Protect Community Service Flights
17 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.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
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.
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," 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
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!!
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?
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?
At estimates on 22 February Mr Carmody said:
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.
Our view is that community service flights have an accident/incident rate significantly higher than in 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.
Last edited by Lead Balloon; 23rd Feb 2019 at 01:31. Reason: Fix typo
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"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.
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.
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.
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.
When you live....
Resolution
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)
Aircraft
Passengers
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
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
- 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
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.
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.
When you live....
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.
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.
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!
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.
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.
ATSB have lashed out at AngelFlight
https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/news-i...rvice-flights/
AngelFlight's response.
http://angelflight.org.au/Angel_Flig...TSB_Report.pdf
Rather typical of ATSB I think...………..when the facts quoted don't stand up to scrutiny.
https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/news-i...rvice-flights/
AngelFlight's response.
http://angelflight.org.au/Angel_Flig...TSB_Report.pdf
Rather typical of ATSB I think...………..when the facts quoted don't stand up to scrutiny.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Itinerant
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Apr 2021
Location: kennel
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.)
(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.)
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.
