Community service flights new rules
At the Australian Airports Association convention in Brisbane last year, Carmody was asked the question as to whether he thought over-regulation was a factor in the continual demise of GA.
His response was somewhat patronising and dismissive and finished with the quote "all GA pilots need is a medical and a flight review". Clearly that question had struck a raw nerve with him.
His response was somewhat patronising and dismissive and finished with the quote "all GA pilots need is a medical and a flight review". Clearly that question had struck a raw nerve with him.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Clearly that question had struck a raw nerve with him."
Which raw nerve? He's a Mandarin for chrissakes, do you think
for a microsecond he gives a toss. The only thing he cares about
is the size of his super and his final rewards for services rendered.
Which raw nerve? He's a Mandarin for chrissakes, do you think
for a microsecond he gives a toss. The only thing he cares about
is the size of his super and his final rewards for services rendered.
Of course Thornbird, it was ever thus. The only way to obtain change is to threaten the rice bowl and the only way to do that is employ lots of Katters. Truth, justice? Baloney! Naked political power is required but you lot are too gentlemanly to become the requisite mongrels.f
CEO Carmody apart from that patronizing, nonsensical riposte .'all you need is a bfr and a medical ' follows the the bs lines from the LSD.
He's been a bureaucatic locust, hopping off to Depts where the corn is riper, the richer the pickings.
Not only that, like Smart Aleck et al he doesnt believe in the rule of law either, and is quite happy to keep, and aid and abet in the process, criminals on the public teat.
He's been a bureaucatic locust, hopping off to Depts where the corn is riper, the richer the pickings.
Not only that, like Smart Aleck et al he doesnt believe in the rule of law either, and is quite happy to keep, and aid and abet in the process, criminals on the public teat.
So basically CASA is admitting that the PPL private pilots are insufficiently trained? please explain.
Are there now two standards of PPL?
If this is allowed to stand, it gives CASA permission to invent a whole new raft of restrictions on PPL’S using the same logic; for example based on experience, technical flight planning, operating and maintenance status and requirements for aircraft types, retractable, CSU, Night VFR, remote areas, pax numbers - all based on a pseudo scientific theory of safety identical to the CSF Logic. in other words, a private AOC.
This is just poisonous.
Presumably a private pilot can still make a private arrangement with a patient needing transport, perhaps through a simple bulletin board and that could not trigger CASAs regulations as a CSF organisation (With their existing safety systems) is not involved. I say “could not” because otherwise CASA has given itself the right to dictate who can fly as a passenger and who cannot. This is what I was getting at with my hypothetical example of patient “timmy’ - he can have a joy flight, a trip to maccas even, but cannot be flown for medical treatment.
How stupid, ignorant, unintelligent and counter productive is CASA? These proposed regulations make private flying operations less safe, since they remove an experienced mediator (angel flight) from the equation as well as disadvantaging rural communities still more.
Are there now two standards of PPL?
If this is allowed to stand, it gives CASA permission to invent a whole new raft of restrictions on PPL’S using the same logic; for example based on experience, technical flight planning, operating and maintenance status and requirements for aircraft types, retractable, CSU, Night VFR, remote areas, pax numbers - all based on a pseudo scientific theory of safety identical to the CSF Logic. in other words, a private AOC.
This is just poisonous.
Presumably a private pilot can still make a private arrangement with a patient needing transport, perhaps through a simple bulletin board and that could not trigger CASAs regulations as a CSF organisation (With their existing safety systems) is not involved. I say “could not” because otherwise CASA has given itself the right to dictate who can fly as a passenger and who cannot. This is what I was getting at with my hypothetical example of patient “timmy’ - he can have a joy flight, a trip to maccas even, but cannot be flown for medical treatment.
How stupid, ignorant, unintelligent and counter productive is CASA? These proposed regulations make private flying operations less safe, since they remove an experienced mediator (angel flight) from the equation as well as disadvantaging rural communities still more.
Last edited by Sunfish; 5th Feb 2019 at 10:23.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Since there seems to be no other logical reason for CAsA's actions
could one be excused for wondering what the kickback is?
Sorry Mr Carmody, checked with angel flight USA. There are no restrictions or extra requirements
placed on private community benefit flights so your misrepresenting again.
could one be excused for wondering what the kickback is?
Sorry Mr Carmody, checked with angel flight USA. There are no restrictions or extra requirements
placed on private community benefit flights so your misrepresenting again.
“Sophistry” - the use of clever but false arguments, especially with the intention of deceiving.
But when I fly friends or relatives they often bring other friends or their children whom I’ve never met. Is that now, or should it be made, ‘illegal’?
Does the law require that private pilots only carry friends or relatives? What law says that?
If someone unilaterally approaches a private pilot and asks whether s/he will carry a passenger from A to B for free, is that ‘illegal’? Should it be ‘illegal’ if the putative passenger is someone who needs to attend an important medical appointment but can’t afford the travel costs, but ‘legal’ if the pilot and putative passenger become instant friends and the pilot chooses to ‘shout’ the flight for free?
Should it be ‘illegal’ for a private pilot to carry any passenger for free?
Oh no.
But accidents happen in charter. What CASA does not do, because is cannot do it, is specify the rate of accidents and incidents that is acceptable at any of the various standards. Nor does it specify why it’s OK to dictate that a passenger may not be exposed to the risks arising from flying at the private standard, but it is OK for that passenger to be exposed to the risks arising from flying at the charter standard instead of the lower risks arising from flying at the RPT standard.
And it is important to note that CASA has no regulatory oversight of any of the intermediaries between any passenger and any of the aircraft on which they fly.
The word “enhancements” is sophistry. Forcing time-based engine overhauls is merely mandating unnecessary risk of catastrophic failure. If only the regulator made decisions on the basis of objective evidence and objective risk analysis, in accordance with its rhetoric.
The word “enhancements” is sophistry. Forcing time-based engine overhauls is merely mandating unnecessary risk of catastrophic failure. If only the regulator made decisions on the basis of objective evidence and objective risk analysis, in accordance with its rhetoric.
Tragic accidents occur in charter and RPT. On what basis has CASA decided the acceptable rate of accidents and incidents in CSFs? In charter? In RPT? What are those rates?
What CASA “believes” has no causal connection with safety. What CASA “believes” is just the subjective opinions of individuals. The fact that those opinions might be given effect through the exercise of regulatory powers does not turn those opinions into objective truths. An appeal to power is just an appeal to power.
In a statement it said it needed to be clear that the issue wasn’t about flying friends or relatives but was about flights brokered or organised by a third party.
Does the law require that private pilots only carry friends or relatives? What law says that?
If someone unilaterally approaches a private pilot and asks whether s/he will carry a passenger from A to B for free, is that ‘illegal’? Should it be ‘illegal’ if the putative passenger is someone who needs to attend an important medical appointment but can’t afford the travel costs, but ‘legal’ if the pilot and putative passenger become instant friends and the pilot chooses to ‘shout’ the flight for free?
Should it be ‘illegal’ for a private pilot to carry any passenger for free?
Currently pilots conducting flights organised by Angel Flight and other providers operate aircraft to Private Pilot Licence standards.
Part of the suggested changes would make standards equivalent to those in the charter flight business.
“It is important to note that CASA has no regulatory oversight of Angel Flight, an organisation which acts as an intermediary between patients and pilots,” the statement read.
“Short of the organisations facilitating the flights voluntarily imposing safety enhancements themselves, CASA’s only regulatory option is to enhance minimum standards for pilots and their aircraft.
“CASA has had various discussions with the relevant organisations on opportunities to enhance safety standards including pilot education and safety awareness, since the most recent fatal accident involving a flight facilitated by Angel Flight in 2017.
“This tragic accident resulted in the deaths of three people, as did the accident that preceded it 2011.
“CASA believes that insufficient progress has been made on safety enhancements to date and that the safety benefits of the proposed direction will significantly outweigh any of the requirements that may be imposed.”
Perhaps if Angel Flight supporters arranged a protest at the CASA stand at the Avalon Airshow - with suitable media coverage of course. Maybe even Mr. Katter might like to make an appearance?
The sophistry of supporting 'arguments from CAsA examined by Led Balloon are the result of the Smart Aleck methods verbiage, spin.and legal excellence in BS.
Proof.. I have three page thesis from him , of verbal vomitus explaining how absolute lies, sworn to by CAsA employees, are actually just "discrepancies in the wording, or use of discrepant words" I kid you not. No wonder the CDPP bolted !!
And as for CAsA's interest in the acceptable rate of Chtr and RPT accidents, ..in court a CAsA 'ambush' witness gave a treatise on how dangerous PPLs are, and do all the killing. AND during the year of pursuit Oz wide of a PPL photographer, light chtr in Cape York and Torres Straits had 7 accidents and 21 fatalities.
Bring on the Judicial Inquiry.
And Angel Flight stall at Avalon, Katter and a protest...where do we sign on?
Proof.. I have three page thesis from him , of verbal vomitus explaining how absolute lies, sworn to by CAsA employees, are actually just "discrepancies in the wording, or use of discrepant words" I kid you not. No wonder the CDPP bolted !!
And as for CAsA's interest in the acceptable rate of Chtr and RPT accidents, ..in court a CAsA 'ambush' witness gave a treatise on how dangerous PPLs are, and do all the killing. AND during the year of pursuit Oz wide of a PPL photographer, light chtr in Cape York and Torres Straits had 7 accidents and 21 fatalities.
Bring on the Judicial Inquiry.
And Angel Flight stall at Avalon, Katter and a protest...where do we sign on?
Just wondering.....I would be interested in knowing the number of patients injured or killed being driven in either cars or ambulances to hospital ???
It's pretty sad that we have to be so ghoulish.
It's pretty sad that we have to be so ghoulish.
This is a perfect opportunity to make the link between cost and safety....and to be honest I am surprised AOPA haven't already made the connection.
The cost of flying is/is getting, so prohibitively expensive that I would argue general currency has/is suffering as a result. I know myself and others are not flying as much due to the costs......you don't have to extrapolate that out far in order to ask the question , compared to our fellow aviators in the US (or other parts of the world), just how current/competent are we? If I did more flying I would be a lot more competent, but I don't, due cost. How many Angel Flights are conducted by pilots that have done little more that 3 T/O/LDGs in the previous 90 days. Sure they are legal....but.... could they be 'legaller' if the cost of being so was reduced?
If you ever wanted a bigger argument for decreasing GA flying costs, this is it. If the costs reduce, the frequency of flying increases and overall safety surely must also increase. I have mates in the US who fly GA aircraft much more regularly than in Aus and at nearly half the cost. GA accident rates over there are better than ours......yes its anecdotal...but the only real difference is cost. (yes reg framework is more enabling but this also has direct influence on cost)
Just my 2 cents worth
The cost of flying is/is getting, so prohibitively expensive that I would argue general currency has/is suffering as a result. I know myself and others are not flying as much due to the costs......you don't have to extrapolate that out far in order to ask the question , compared to our fellow aviators in the US (or other parts of the world), just how current/competent are we? If I did more flying I would be a lot more competent, but I don't, due cost. How many Angel Flights are conducted by pilots that have done little more that 3 T/O/LDGs in the previous 90 days. Sure they are legal....but.... could they be 'legaller' if the cost of being so was reduced?
If you ever wanted a bigger argument for decreasing GA flying costs, this is it. If the costs reduce, the frequency of flying increases and overall safety surely must also increase. I have mates in the US who fly GA aircraft much more regularly than in Aus and at nearly half the cost. GA accident rates over there are better than ours......yes its anecdotal...but the only real difference is cost. (yes reg framework is more enabling but this also has direct influence on cost)
Just my 2 cents worth
And we should ask the rhetorical question, again: Why do a much larger proportion of private pilots in the USA have IFR ratings compared with in Australia.
I suggest positive training to negate “getthereitis” affecting some pilot’s egos might not go astray and solve most of the perceived problem.
In the first of the 2 accidents, the pilot landed at Bendigo to check weather. This doesn't fit with either the pilot having a big ego or “getthereitis”. At Bendigo (from memory) the pilot made 3 phonecalls, one of which was to the BoM and after recieving that advice the pilot chose to continue. The ATSB conveniently omits any details of the call made to the BoM despite the fact that the call was recorded.
the ATSB has not yet released the report on the second accident and the preliminary report has scant detail, so the cause is complete conjecture and the ATSB preliminary report does not rule out mechanical issues. But, the pilot had flown into Mt Gambier some 2 hours prior and was therefore fully aware of the weather. Mt Gambier has a commercial service to Adelaide. Anyone who has actually flown Angel Flights (as opposed to those who speculate) know that its the easiest thing in the world to ring Angel Flight and declare the visibility unsuitable and have the passengers booked commercially instead.
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think that either of the Angel Flight accidents support the premise that either "get there itis" or " pilots egos" were involved.
In the first of the 2 accidents, the pilot landed at Bendigo to check weather. This doesn't fit with either the pilot having a big ego or “getthereitis”. At Bendigo (from memory) the pilot made 3 phonecalls, one of which was to the BoM and after recieving that advice the pilot chose to continue. The ATSB conveniently omits any details of the call made to the BoM despite the fact that the call was recorded.
the ATSB has not yet released the report on the second accident and the preliminary report has scant detail, so the cause is complete conjecture and the ATSB preliminary report does not rule out mechanical issues. But, the pilot had flown into Mt Gambier some 2 hours prior and was therefore fully aware of the weather. Mt Gambier has a commercial service to Adelaide. Anyone who has actually flown Angel Flights (as opposed to those who speculate) know that its the easiest thing in the world to ring Angel Flight and declare the visibility unsuitable and have the passengers booked commercially instead.
In the first of the 2 accidents, the pilot landed at Bendigo to check weather. This doesn't fit with either the pilot having a big ego or “getthereitis”. At Bendigo (from memory) the pilot made 3 phonecalls, one of which was to the BoM and after recieving that advice the pilot chose to continue. The ATSB conveniently omits any details of the call made to the BoM despite the fact that the call was recorded.
the ATSB has not yet released the report on the second accident and the preliminary report has scant detail, so the cause is complete conjecture and the ATSB preliminary report does not rule out mechanical issues. But, the pilot had flown into Mt Gambier some 2 hours prior and was therefore fully aware of the weather. Mt Gambier has a commercial service to Adelaide. Anyone who has actually flown Angel Flights (as opposed to those who speculate) know that its the easiest thing in the world to ring Angel Flight and declare the visibility unsuitable and have the passengers booked commercially instead.
Go replay & view the ABC 7:30 report documentary on these two crashes, should never have happened!
It's an amazing organization AF but his is not the way to go about it!
Personally these flights should not be allowed unless under a far stricter regime, but that's my OPINION!
oh i see, light aircraft are for entertainment, using them for anything more constructive is a dangerous thing because then motivation will always overcome common sense. Machtuk is bringing us back to medieval logic. Human beings cannot be trusted to make good decisions but must always defer to divine authority- the great god “safety “ as revealed by his high. priest CASA.