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 1st Jan 2019, 10:17
  #41 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 6,919
I am sympathetic to CASA’s position. The lack of payment is not the issue. An Angel Flight pilot is effectively “standing in the marketplace” - available to those who ask for assistance. The moral imperative to assist those in need may overcome the usual prudence and lead to suboptimal personal decisions. Some guidance would be useful.
Sunfish is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 1st Jan 2019, 10:57
  #42 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,634
The moral imperative to assist those in need may overcome the usual prudence and lead to suboptimal personal decisions.
I have flown a reasonable number of Angel Flights. I memory serves I've cancelled 2 due to weather and one due to aircraft technical issues. I completely disagree with your premise.
Old Akro is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 1st Jan 2019, 22:23
  #43 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 1,079
Sunny...'lack of payment not the issue.
If it was , for CAsA all hell would break loose, 'commerce commerce ' the sky is falling..CPL and AOC needed..(more work for us)..and that would get rid of all pvt players.
Their ,brain snap approach, re engine hours has sfa to do with the decision making processes used by pilots once they are off the ground.
CAsA has this misguided fundamentalist zeal that they can prevent any aviation accident, whatever the cause. Its an impossiblity, but little GA is a very easy target, CFS flights become the 'what shall we do this week' and for CAsA ' we are they ultimate "safety" gurus' so cop this.!
Utter brilliance.!
aroa is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 1st Jan 2019, 22:24
  #44 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 6,919
Old Akro, who isn’t moved by the sight of a sick and needy child? That natural reaction may possibly overcome ones normal caution and perhaps launch when your instincts might be to wait. Our natural charity could be our undoing.

I have, in my own stupidity, turned out in a fire tanker with a driver who had maybe had one beer too many, such is our natural desire to help unfortunates. - I transgressed the first rule about helping anyone. Angel Flight pilots run that same risk.
Sunfish is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 1st Jan 2019, 22:51
  #45 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 2,491
Assuming you’re correct, Sunfish, the question is: So what? To put that another way, on the basis of what data are you saying that the increased risk in the circumstances you describe is “unacceptable”?

Not all risk taking ends in disaster. Some disasters are the inevitable consequence of living in a world that will never be risk-free and enjoys a net benefit from risk taking.

I thought you were a guru on risk analysis and cost/benefit analysis?
Lead Balloon is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 2nd Jan 2019, 00:07
  #46 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 6,919
i’m not saying that the risk is unacceptable or CASAs prescription is correct. What i am saying is that the risk is potentially different from your run of the mill family jolly ride.

We are all familiar with the dangers of “get thereitis “ which has killed many..

’What I am saying is there is a condition called “get poor deserving kid to hospital-itis “ that may turn out just as badly if it is not managed in some way.
Sunfish is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 2nd Jan 2019, 01:02
  #47 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 158
'Sunny' I happen to agree with you. It's fine for others not to, they have their agenda as we do. CASA are approaching this all wrong, maint isn't the part that is where the risk lies but CASA only tie up safety with risk mechanically in most cases. I've said it before I don't believe these flights ought to be allowed despite all the good intentions, but that's just me. my opinion.
machtuk is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 2nd Jan 2019, 01:15
  #48 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 6,919
Perhaps if there was a cost free road option available then the pressure might be less.
Sunfish is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 2nd Jan 2019, 03:53
  #49 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Canberra ACT Australia
Posts: 129
But would the road option be risk free? No. I regularly see Angel Flight tasks from places like Hay and Warren to YSBK. Ever heard of the road toll, especially on country roads?

Would the road option be time free? No. Do the calcs on the delta between the flight time and the drive time from places like Hay and Warren to YSBK. Even economically poor people can be time poor. Some are working a number of jobs to survive.

Would the road option be get-there-itis free? No. I reckon the fatigue risk would be higher than the flight option.

I don't mind if 'private' CSF's are 'banned', provided there is reliable data and analysis to show that the benefits of the ban would outweigh the costs. Where is the reliable data and analysis to show the benefits of CSFs at the current 'standard'?

If 'private' CSF's are 'banned', and there's a fatality during a 'higher standard' CSF, what then? Another kneejerk increase in standards? Deaths occur during charter flights.

Might as well get it over and done with and jump straight to the inevitable: CSFs banned except in transport category aircraft to and from aerodromes with a CATIIIC ILS.
Clinton McKenzie is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 2nd Jan 2019, 22:35
  #50 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 6,919
Well said Cleared. I am not arguing about CASAs response. i am simply saying that the emotional imperative behind CSFs are different from purely private operations and the associated risks have to be managed and according to you, Angel Flight is aware of this and has procedures in place.

To put it another way, the argument that no money changes hands so the operation is identical to taking your kids for the proverbial $100 hamburger lunch doesn’t wash.

I agree with you that CASAs response - the engine strictures, is pointlesss and destructive. It could be said that the CASA response is perhaps as emotionally loaded as my example pilot. Everyone, including CASA, wants to help the unfortunate. It’s just for a well meaning CASA , the answer to all problems is more regulation.

Clintons argument about road risks is also correct. Being cynical again, it could be said that the lawyers in CASA couldn’t care less about Angel Flight customers, just so long as they don’t get killed in an air crash. If they die on the roads that’s not CASAs problem.
Sunfish is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 2nd Jan 2019, 23:09
  #51 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Goolwa
Age: 54
Posts: 105
Sunfish
’What I am saying is there is a condition called “get poor deserving kid to hospital-itis “
Clearedtoreenter
Perhaps some pilots are afflicted by ‘get thereitis’ or ‘watch this’ syndrome.
Sunfish
i am simply saying that the emotional imperative behind CSFs are different from purely private operations
During this holiday season I have seen a few pilots taking to the air with family and friends in less than ideal situations (not unsafe, just not ideal) because that is the only time they can do it, or it was a promised Christmas present, etc. etc. I would say there is some form of pressure in nearly every flight we do (its a beautiful day and the weather for next week is rubbish, I should go for a fly today). Part of the training and ongoing responsibility of being a pilot (Recreational, GA, ATP, etc.) is to recognise and manage pressure. How a person perceives or even creates pressure for themselves and the way they handle that pressure can be a real problem with private flying. One person can be fine the other stressed, one prepared the other unprepared. Whether it is a CSF or a family trip, or even a solo jaunt around the block the mental attitude and preparedness for the flight, if lacking, can lead to accidents.
Since our society seems hell bent on controlling everything we do through regulation and safety initiatives here are a few suggestions...
1. A psychological test must be conducted and submitted to CASA before each flight. (OzRunways could build this into their program)
2. A certificate from a certified psychologist or psychiatrist before commencing flight operations.
3. A Cortisone sensor linked directly to the aircraft master switch, like a breathalyser switch but for stress.
4. Take responsibility for your own actions and state of mind, act in a professional and rational manner, seek additional training, use a support network of other experienced people if in doubt and do not take unnecessary risks.

I wonder which one CASA will choose?
Dexta is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 2nd Jan 2019, 23:21
  #52 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Geostationary Orbit
Posts: 220
All 7. (you probably missed a few).
thunderbird five is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 3rd Jan 2019, 00:16
  #53 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,297
I am currently preparing a one thousand page operations Manual, a safety management Manual, a quality assurance Manual,
a check & training Manual, Maintenance Manual, ongoing maintenance assurance manual, A CRM Manual, a TEM manual and a detailed FCOM.
This is to support an application for an AOC. I will be employing the 20 or so non technical staff necessary to ensure compliance.
I am hopeful my AOC will be granted within CAsA's ten year estimate for completion so I can be legally approved to hide under my bed.
WE are doomed!!
thorn bird is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 3rd Jan 2019, 02:16
  #54 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: Tolga
Posts: 2
Introduction of proposed safety standard - community service flights

Below is a submission from one of our experienced RPT and private owner pilots: sums it up nicely.

Introduction of proposed safety standard - community service flights

The proposal introduces minimum CSF pilot experience, licensing and medical requirements, requirement of flights at night to be conducted using instrument procedures instead of visual procedures and requires slightly enhanced aircraft maintenance requirements, in line with other operations within Australia involving similar participants.

Please provide feedback below. You may enter as little or as much information as you wish.: Proposed safety standard - Community service flights (CD 1814OS)

The suggestion that CSF passengers are uninformed or even less informed than other private flight/ GA charter passengers is absurd. By the time CSF passengers board an aircraft they have been provided with written information and adequate time to make an informed decision on whether to travel by air or alternative means. This information is provided by the CSF provider & then verbally by the PIC. If a CSF passenger is still ‘uninformed’, it is by choice.

Proposed recency requirement- one landing in the type or class in the last 30 days. I only need 1 landing in the last 45 days to operate a widebody aircraft for an Australian HC AOC holder. The 10 widebody (type) landings I may have conducted in the last 30 days will apparently not count for recency for a CSF in my GA single engine aircraft.

The operational environment for a CSF pilot is benign in comparison to that of a working CPL holder. No employment threats, serviceable & familiar aircraft, the ability to cancel a flight without consequence, flights planned well in advance & no remote areas. To suggest that the experience requirements to operate a CSF flight should be higher than those required for a commercial operation is thus nonsensical.

The proposed requirement for piston engines to meet AD/Eng/4 requirement 2 (calendar life) defies logic. My piston engine is electronically data monitored, is checked & oil changed by a licensed engineer every 4 months, undergoes laboratory oil analysis 3 times/ year & is borescoped & compression checked every 12

months. To suggest that overhauling the engine simply to meet a calendar requirement defies logic. It merely puts the engine back into the high risk zone for catastrophic failure.

The CSF with which I am familiar has operated nearly 23,000 flights & suffered 2 accidents in 15 years. A sensible approach to improving safety would be to examine what the 22,998 flights have been doing successfully rather than impose a grab bag of untried limitations.

The proposed changes as documented conflict with the CASA fairness values. Decisions are to be risk based & evidence driven, both of which are absent from CD1814OS.

Marjorie Pagani
Chief Executive Officer
Angel Flight Australia
AngelFlightCEO is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 3rd Jan 2019, 12:23
  #55 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,497
Marjorie,
Time for a major petition, with plenty of publicity, on something like Change.org.
AOPA should be able to arrange an email out to every Federal and State politician with multiple shots to very news outlet.
CASA do not like lots of very public attention.
Tootle pip!!
LeadSled is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 3rd Jan 2019, 21:58
  #56 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: Tolga
Posts: 2
Thanks Leddie. Ben at AOPA has been very helpful. But I think the real focus is on how they are attempting to bypass proper democratic and legislative processes ( quite apart from lack of consultation with AF and industry). To take away rights or impose restrictions on licence holders, with the stroke of the CEO’s pen, is dictatorial and an abuse of process. Our licences and maintenance requirements are governed by the Regs: any amendment should be by proper Regulatory change . By ambushing us all on the eve of long holidays , and by proposing an administrative direction, ensures no ‘interference’ by our elected representatives in parliament. Parliamentary members can disallow Regs - they cannot disallow a direction, and nor does it have to be presented to either House. The implications of this high-handed and undemocratic action, if allowed to proceed, sets a dangerous precedent which could see all or any of our aviation rights cancelled at the whim of CASA, and not the legislature.

Contacting State and Federal members to alert them to this proposed action would be helpful, particularly the attempt to block them from having a say in this process, which fundamentally alters the rights of licence holders and aircraft owners/operators.
AngelFlightCEO is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 3rd Jan 2019, 22:01
  #57 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Canberra ACT Australia
Posts: 129
The suggestion that CSF passengers are uninformed or even less informed than other private flight/ GA charter passengers is absurd. By the time CSF passengers board an aircraft they have been provided with written information and adequate time to make an informed decision on whether to travel by air or alternative means. This information is provided by the CSF provider & then verbally by the PIC. If a CSF passenger is still ‘uninformed’, it is by choice.

Proposed recency requirement- one landing in the type or class in the last 30 days. I only need 1 landing in the last 45 days to operate a widebody aircraft for an Australian HC AOC holder. The 10 widebody (type) landings I may have conducted in the last 30 days will apparently not count for recency for a CSF in my GA single engine aircraft.

The operational environment for a CSF pilot is benign in comparison to that of a working CPL holder. No employment threats, serviceable & familiar aircraft, the ability to cancel a flight without consequence, flights planned well in advance & no remote areas. To suggest that the experience requirements to operate a CSF flight should be higher than those required for a commercial operation is thus nonsensical.

The proposed requirement for piston engines to meet AD/Eng/4 requirement 2 (calendar life) defies logic. My piston engine is electronically data monitored, is checked & oil changed by a licensed engineer every 4 months, undergoes laboratory oil analysis 3 times/ year & is borescoped & compression checked every 12 months. To suggest that overhauling the engine simply to meet a calendar requirement defies logic. It merely puts the engine back into the high risk zone for catastrophic failure.

The CSF with which I am familiar has operated nearly 23,000 flights & suffered 2 accidents in 15 years. A sensible approach to improving safety would be to examine what the 22,998 flights have been doing successfully rather than impose a grab bag of untried limitations.

The proposed changes as documented conflict with the CASA fairness values. Decisions are to be risk based & evidence driven, both of which are absent from CD1814OS.
Well said.

The terms “absurd”, “nonsensical” and “defies logic” are justified in the circumstances.
Clinton McKenzie is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 4th Jan 2019, 06:58
  #58 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: In my Swag
Posts: 483
Could be the thin edge of the wedge as we head toward no on condition at all.
Most of the comments here would support that
Eddie Dean is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 4th Jan 2019, 08:23
  #59 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Victoria
Posts: 644
Does this affect Fun Flight too?

kaz
kaz3g is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 5th Jan 2019, 09:18
  #60 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,497
Originally Posted by AngelFlightCEO View Post
Thanks Leddie. Ben at AOPA has been very helpful. But I think the real focus is on how they are attempting to bypass proper democratic and legislative processes ( quite apart from lack of consultation with AF and industry). To take away rights or impose restrictions on licence holders, with the stroke of the CEO’s pen, is dictatorial and an abuse of process. Our licences and maintenance requirements are governed by the Regs: any amendment should be by proper Regulatory change . By ambushing us all on the eve of long holidays , and by proposing an administrative direction, ensures no ‘interference’ by our elected representatives in parliament. Parliamentary members can disallow Regs - they cannot disallow a direction, and nor does it have to be presented to either House. The implications of this high-handed and undemocratic action, if allowed to proceed, sets a dangerous precedent which could see all or any of our aviation rights cancelled at the whim of CASA, and not the legislature.

Contacting State and Federal members to alert them to this proposed action would be helpful, particularly the attempt to block them from having a say in this process, which fundamentally alters the rights of licence holders and aircraft owners/operators.
Marjorie,
Inadvertently or otherwise, you have given a pretty good rundown on CASA Standard Operating Procedures.
And, as another poster has pointed out, if the pain, suffering and worse in not associated with an aeroplane, CASA is actively disinterested.
Tootle pip!!
LeadSled is offline  
Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service