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 5th Jan 2019, 10:53
  #61 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Sunshine Coast
Posts: 131
Everyone seems to be missing the point that this thread staretd with a link to a set of CONSULTATION DOCUMENTS
Vag277 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 5th Jan 2019, 16:41
  #62 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 6,920
Scene: A country road in outback New South Wales, three police cars are conducting random breathalyser checks. An SUV has just been flagged down for a breath test....


Officer: “Good morning, blow into the machine till I tell you to stop”.


Driver: (Blows into machine). “Morning Officer, is the reading OK?”


Officer: “You’re fine, by the way, your kid in the back seat is not looking very well”.


Driver: “Oh that’s not my kid, that’s a neighbours kid, Timmy, I’m taking him to Sydney for his chemo treatment, poor little fella.”

8
Officer: “What? Say that again.”


Driver: “Timmy has cancer, I’m taking him to hospital for his regular chemotherapy session, happens every month. His mother doesn’t have a car and can’t get anymore time off work either.”


Officer: Don’t you understand you’re breaking the law by doing this? You can’t take a patient to hospital except in an ambulance. I don’t see any flashing lights on your car, this doesn’t look like an ambulance.”


Driver: “It isn’t an ambulance , it’s just my Toyota. Timmy is strapped into his safety seat, what more do I need? We have water and some snacks and his painkiller medication, this is going to be a five hour drive.”


Officer: “You obviously don’t understand, the law says that only an ambulance can take a patient to hospital for treatment. It’s for safety! You don’t have emergency lights, siren, a flouro vest and a uniform, your not an accredited paramedic either”.


Driver: “But Timmy’s mother isn’t a parawhatsit either, if she had a car, couldn’t she drive him to hospital? Why not me? She doesn’t have the time and she’s not a very good driver as well.


Officer: “The law is quite clear. She can take him but you can’t. Don’t you understand? What you are doing is highly dangerous without being specially trained, in an ambulance, with a safety manual to follow and a procedures manual, operations manual and a log book and a mission statement. I should warn you, the penalties for this are severe. Your car tires look a bit scuffed as well.”


Driver: “ You mean I can take Timmy and a whole car load of screaming kids to McDonalds, Dreamworld or wherever and that’s OK, but if I want to take him to hospital I can’t?”


Officer: “Precisely(smiling). I see you understand. It would be far too dangerous to make that hospital trip.”


Driver: “Well this is crazy. I can do anything I like except help people. Not only that, me and my friends have been driving poor kids to doctors and hospitals for years without any trouble, but you now tell me it’s forbidden because it’s too dangerous? What is Timmy supposed to do if I’m not here - take non existent public transport? Hitchike?


Officer: “It sounds to me like you and your friends are engaged in a criminal conspiracy! Wait till my boss hears this! I should get a promotion for shutting you down. As for Timmy, the law doesn’t care what happens to him. All we care about is safety above everything else. If Timmy can’t travel to hospital then he can’t have an accident during the trip. The logic of the law is simple and unchallengeable. Now turn around and take the kid back home!”



Last edited by Sunfish; 5th Jan 2019 at 22:57.
Sunfish is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 6th Jan 2019, 23:52
  #63 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: adelaide, Australia
Posts: 394
May I make this point quite clear about CSF flights and any perceived pressure to get the passenger requiring treatment etc to his/her appointment. There is none from the patients point of view. Out patient treatment is what we are talking about here and as such a day or two late is here nor there. I know this from personal experience having had a child with childhood cancer many years ago. Luckily for us as we lived in the country some 500km from the city where treatment was carried out, I had a pilots licence, and every month would take my child by private aircraft that I would hire from the local Aero Club or a mate with a plane and do the trip. It certainly beat driving which was 5 hr each way as apposed to a bit over an hour by aircraft. These were the days before Angel flight ever existed and to ever be taken by Air Ambulance/ Flying Doctor you had to be at deaths door. If the weather was too bad to fly we would either drive ( only if the weather was expected to hang around for days ),travel to the nearest larger centre that had an RPT service like the Ansett Fokker Friendship service etc if we had to. Usually however it was just a matter of phoning the treating Hospital explaining the situation as they knew about us country folk that flew in for appointments from the bush ( I think it used to amuse them really) and another appointment would be made. This went on for 3 years.
Only once did I ever have to declare a mercy flight when our child took suddenly sick and the local GP didn't have a clue about how to handle it and told us to get to the city quick. You see when someone is on Chemo their immune system is very low to nil. A simple case of chicken pox can and does kill. That is why we preferred not to use public transport of any kind as you don't know who you are sitting near. On that occasion I have to say Air Services were brilliant. This was in the days of full reporting. They followed us all the way and we had priority landing clearance ahead of the jets waiting to land. An airport vehicle was waiting to lead us to a parking area out of the way near a gate and a taxi was then summoned to take us to the hospital. I take my hat off to them that day.
So from someone who has lived it ,and worried about if your child will survive or not let me say this. Angel Flight or any other outfit/individual who provides this service, it is a valuable and needed service ( not essential as in the Air Ambulance) but valuable none the less, especially where infection is a risk. CASA and some on here do not have a clue , only worried about safety. It is a pity those that came up with such a proposal don't have to put their names to it rather than hide behind the public service cone of silence. What is safe about exposing someone to 100 people in a tin can with any sort of ailment? The flu is serious if on Chemo let alone any other bugs floating around. They should butt out and leave well alone.
As a final note our child did make it and 30 odd years on owes his life to technology as only a few years prior was a certain death sentence.
mostlytossas is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 7th Jan 2019, 00:46
  #64 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 2,491
Originally Posted by Vag277 View Post
Everyone seems to be missing the point that this thread staretd with a link to a set of CONSULTATION DOCUMENTS
You seem to be missing some of the context of the “consultation”, Vag.

This is not the first time a “consultation” on this issue has occurred. This time around we get the addition of yet another bright idea: Time-based engine TBOs, despite what the data show.

The CEO of Angel Flight should not have to say this:

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.
This is not evidence-based or risk-based regulation. This is not “safety through simplicity”.

The process itself is a manifestation of how busted the regulatory paradigm is. An accident or incident occurs and the regulator is “responsible” for responding to it. And what’s the only thing the regulator is ‘good’ at? Regulating. So the regulator trots out a bunch of proposals that will impose more costs, restrictions and complexity and asks: Whaddayareckon? But if the regulator actually cared and listened to what we reckon, the regulator would have listened and heeded the feedback that’s been provided for decades and wouldn’t have come up with the bunch of proposals in the first place, unsupported by any valid cost/benefit/risk data. But that doesn’t matter, because the most important and relevant data that should be essential considerations in standards setting are irrelevant externalities to the regulator.
Lead Balloon is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 7th Jan 2019, 02:49
  #65 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: WA
Posts: 1,177
Great stuff LB. May I suggest people start contacting their MPs. I have just been onto the office of the Member for Durack as I happen to personally know one of her staffers. He is also forwarding to the member for Oçonnor for me.
Time to ramp this s>>t up folks. Well articulated and strong argument on PPRuNe is great but it is not going to kill this thing. We need to get the pollies on side.
YPJT is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 7th Jan 2019, 06:37
  #66 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 1,079
Mta's story gives us the pub and smell tests of CSF. All positive. So CAsA ,..'butt out' and bugger off.!,

CEO Angel is on the mark. This is yet another dictitorial, undemocratic, no due process 'brain snap' so common of CAsA.
And has all the hallmarks of the underhand methods, timing, and etc.

Time for a riot at 16 Furzer St.to get the message across.
aroa is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 7th Jan 2019, 23:23
  #67 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 35
I for one am glad that Angel Flight got away from calling the flights, "Missions" and had total "Missions" attributed to individual pilot's on their website. That was asking for trouble from the start. My brother does them often and will nearly always welcome new passengers with a blind person's white cane and a special "How to Fly" Checklist that he uses. Funny Bugger!
Alpha Whiskey Bravo is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 8th Jan 2019, 05:56
  #68 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Up The 116E, Stbd Turn at 32S...:-)
Age: 77
Posts: 2,627
Hey Mr 'AWB'.....'That' must be 'confidence inspiring' …..at first glance anyway....

Re "Now turn around and take the kid back home!”
Gee Sunny, under what authority do you have to drive the kid home?
Does it matter which direction you are facing....i.e. 'to' or 'from'....

In the eyes of 'Officer Adolf', your vehicle is definitely NOT an ambulance, and therefore definitely NOT suitable for transporting the kid!
So what do you do now?
You cannot take 'the kid' either backwards or forwards.....

I guess you could either -
1 - Give him over to the 'officer' to take home.... But then, the 'officer's vehicle is NOT an 'Ambo' either!
or
2 - Tip him out onto the road, as YOU cannot transport him ANYWHERE anymore....
3 - Suggest to 'officer' Adolf that HE call out the ambos...AND he pay the bill.

Tis a 'CROCK' ain't it..??

p.s. Or, one day we wake up'...It was just a nightmare...................................

No cheers...….NOPE! NONE at ALL!!!!
Ex FSO GRIFFO is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 8th Jan 2019, 21:41
  #69 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 6,920
Ex FSO, not quite. Under the proposed rules you can take "timmy" anywhere anytime. Just as long as the flight isn't an Angel Flight.

I wrote that example as an essay in explaining the CSF predicament to ordinary Australians in terms they understand. Once it gets technical the average punter loses interest.

I'm not original either, its modelled on the timeless "bag of peanuts" accounting example.


https://www.forbes.com/sites/boblutz.../#18c92a2e69ef
Sunfish is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10th Jan 2019, 20:50
  #70 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Mars
Posts: 417
Originally Posted by Sunfish View Post
Ex FSO, not quite. Under the proposed rules you can take "timmy" anywhere anytime. Just as long as the flight isn't an Angel Flight.

I wrote that example as an essay in explaining the CSF predicament to ordinary Australians in terms they understand. Once it gets technical the average punter loses interest.

I'm not original either, its modelled on the timeless "bag of peanuts" accounting example.


https://www.forbes.com/sites/boblutz.../#18c92a2e69ef
Yeah, but sound logical, well informed, sensible argument based on risk data and truth doesn’t count.

The safety benefits of the standard significantly outweigh the requirements being imposed. These actions are consistent with CASA’s regulatory philosophy where air safety is not compromised, and the proposal reflects a proportionate risk-based approach.
So there ya are: it’s all about a risk-based approach and benefits of the proposed standard will significantly outweigh the requirements being imposed. Yeah, right.

Do whatever you like, even do a CSF... as long as it’s not deemed a CSF, because they demand a (dis)proportionate risk(???) based approach to make some undefined benefits possible(?)

Last edited by Clearedtoreenter; 10th Jan 2019 at 21:11.
Clearedtoreenter is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10th Jan 2019, 23:02
  #71 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 2,491
The safety benefits of the standard significantly outweigh the requirements being imposed. These actions are consistent with CASA’s regulatory philosophy where air safety is not compromised, and the proposal reflects a proportionate risk-based approach.
Just goes to show, once again, that CASA does not understand how proper standards setting is supposed to work. CASA can’t even get it’s empty rhetoric right.

The empty rhetoric should have been “outweigh the costs of the requirements being imposed”. However, because CASA doesn’t have any cost data and wouldn’t care less about it in any event, a bunch of waffle and cliches is their only option to paper over what is, in fact, a knee jerk reaction.

No precise quantification of the “benefits”. No precise quantification of what “significantly” means. No precise quantification of the costs of compliance including the costs in terms of people who may no longer have access to CSFs. No precise quantification of the risks taken into account in the claimed ‘risk-based’ approach. None of that has been spelt out because it does not exist.
Lead Balloon is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11th Jan 2019, 01:17
  #72 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 6,920
I live three hours drive from melbourne. My wife had breast cancer three years ago. We had two years of chemo, hospital, mastectomy, ultrasounds, radiation, blood tests, physio and reconstruction. Each trip (and there were at least 25 per year) involved a minimum of six hours driving, three days lost time and then overnight hotel accommodation. We are just now in the middle of a weeks worth of follow up consultations, fortunately OK so far.

Out of pocket costs for transportation at least $15,000 p.a., not including accomodation and meals, plus the huge opportunity costs associated with my lost time. Any cost/benefit analysis has to take such significant costs into account.
Sunfish is offline  
Reply With Quote

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service