Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions
Reload this Page >

Community service flights new rules

The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions The place for students, instructors and charter guys in Oz, NZ and the rest of Oceania.

Community service flights new rules

Reply

Old 24th Dec 2018, 04:51
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Sunshine Coast
Posts: 131
For information, Australian government policy on value of human life: https://www.pmc.gov.au/sites/default...dance_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).
Vag277 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 24th Dec 2018, 05:50
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 6,919
Vag277, “which involves little difficulty or expense” exactly consistent with risk management principles.
Sunfish is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 24th Dec 2018, 07:56
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,497
Originally Posted by Vag277 View Post
For information, Australian government policy on value of human life: https://www.pmc.gov.au/sites/default...dance_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!!
LeadSled is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 24th Dec 2018, 09:13
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,634
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.
Old Akro is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 24th Dec 2018, 09:48
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,297
"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.
thorn bird is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 25th Dec 2018, 01:08
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,497
Originally Posted by thorn bird View Post
"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!!
LeadSled is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 25th Dec 2018, 06:57
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 158
Originally Posted by Old Akro View Post
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.
machtuk is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 25th Dec 2018, 09:14
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,297
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.
thorn bird is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 25th Dec 2018, 09:27
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Australia
Posts: 212
Originally Posted by Old Akro View Post
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?
Cloudee is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 25th Dec 2018, 20:48
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Canberra ACT Australia
Posts: 129
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.
Clinton McKenzie is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 25th Dec 2018, 20:57
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 6,919
So what then for mercy flights?
Sunfish is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 25th Dec 2018, 21:18
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,856
Originally Posted by Sunfish View Post
So what then for mercy flights?
This has nothing to do with mercy flights.
Squawk7700 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 30th Dec 2018, 02:34
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 77
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.
Flying Ted is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 30th Dec 2018, 03:26
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,634
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)
Old Akro is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 30th Dec 2018, 05:10
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,497
Originally Posted by Old Akro View Post
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!!
LeadSled is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 30th Dec 2018, 22:14
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 1,079
Leadie's last line. Now aint that absolutely the truth.
aroa is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 31st Dec 2018, 08:40
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 45
Some very good arguments here so please go online and complete the survey.
CASA not likely to read PPRuNe
ANCIENT is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 1st Jan 2019, 01:36
  #38 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 77
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.
Flying Ted is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 1st Jan 2019, 05:07
  #39 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 2,491
Originally Posted by ANCIENT View Post
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...
Lead Balloon is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 1st Jan 2019, 05:19
  #40 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Salt Lake City Utah
Posts: 3,047
Originally Posted by Flying Ted View Post
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.
Creampuff is offline  
Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service