Community service flights new rules
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Goolwa
Age: 59
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The “private flight, not private flight” is where CASA is getting the “we are just following the FAA” line from. In the USA if a pilot accepts any kind of recompense for the flight then the flight cannot be operated under Part 91 (private) but must be under part 135 (charter). Recompense can be free fuel or even flight time in someone else’s aircraft. Cost sharing doesn’t apply because the purpose of the flight is for the passengers not for the pilot. So the FAA has been coming down hard on these Community Service Flights but also recognises the need for them, so they issue an excemption to the various organisations such as Angel Flight. This excemption to allow recompense in the form of free fuel comes with various requirements, such as minimum pilot hours, hours on type, must be IFR etc (though no mention of engine overhauls). A lot of pilots in the USA who wish to do a CSF find the additional requirements to receive free fuel all too hard and just pay for everything themselves thus making it a purely private Part 91 flight.
Lead Balloon,
That clears up one point about which I was uncertain --- let us hope that at least somebody like Bob Katter will move a disallowance --- as you say, all the damage is done by the time the dust settles after an election, even if a disallowance is moved.
Tootle pip!!
That clears up one point about which I was uncertain --- let us hope that at least somebody like Bob Katter will move a disallowance --- as you say, all the damage is done by the time the dust settles after an election, even if a disallowance is moved.
Tootle pip!!
A lot of pilots in the USA who wish to do a CSF find the additional requirements to receive free fuel all too hard and just pay for everything themselves thus making it a purely private Part 91 flight.
Astonishing that the universe adjusts the objective risks of the flight according to who paid for the fuel. Same pilot, same aircraft and fuel and same passengers, and “safe” if the debt owing for the fuel is discharged by the pilot, but “unsafe” if the debt owing for the fuel is discharged by someone other than the pilot. Truly astonishing.
I think you’ll find that in the USA - as in Australia - a person can buy an aircraft (and the fuel that’s put in it) and pay a pilot to fly the person around, and that’s a private flight that can be carried out VFR. The person who buys the aircraft may have zero understanding of the risks of being flown around privately to the VFR. I wonder how the aircraft ‘knows’ the passenger (owner) is not a community service flight passenger and how the pilot resists get-home-itis.
Truly astonishing.
Leaddie: Occasionally a member of parliament will move disallowance motions as a precautionary measure to ‘preserve’ the mechanism in advance of potential dissolutions or proroguing of the parliament. Just have to find someone with the time and energy to do it.
I think you’ll find that in the USA - as in Australia - a person can buy an aircraft (and the fuel that’s put in it) and pay a pilot to fly the person around, and that’s a private flight that can be carried out VFR. The person who buys the aircraft may have zero understanding of the risks of being flown around privately to the VFR. I wonder how the aircraft ‘knows’ the passenger (owner) is not a community service flight passenger and how the pilot resists get-home-itis.
It is worth noting that there are some fundamental differences between the US and Australian regulations in this area.
In the above, the hire pilot would have to have a CPL, even though the operation would be Part 91 private. FAA General Counsel takes such a narrow minded view of the regulations that say , if a pilot with a historic aircraft goes to an airshow, to even accept a can of coke and a hamburger, they must have a CPL ----- BUT ---- NONE of that position is based on risk assessment or "safety", but simply the rule that says that to receive compensation of any kind as a pilot, no matter how indirect, the said pilot must have a least a CPL.
So, it in no way relates to the position CASA is taking on Angel Flight.
Operations that can be conducted under Part 91 as Private operations are far broader than AU, for example aerial photography ---- is private, there is no Aerial Work in the US system.
Tootle pip!!
Alas for photography, acceptance of the "coke and hamburger" in Oz leads to sh*t and destruction of yr business for the heinous act of "commerce"
NO wonder GA in Oz is fcuked.!
NO wonder GA in Oz is fcuked.!
Folks,
It is worth noting that there are some fundamental differences between the US and Australian regulations in this area.
In the above, the hire pilot would have to have a CPL, even though the operation would be Part 91 private. FAA General Counsel takes such a narrow minded view of the regulations that say , if a pilot with a historic aircraft goes to an airshow, to even accept a can of coke and a hamburger, they must have a CPL ----- BUT ---- NONE of that position is based on risk assessment or "safety", but simply the rule that says that to receive compensation of any kind as a pilot, no matter how indirect, the said pilot must have a least a CPL.
So, it in no way relates to the position CASA is taking on Angel Flight.
Operations that can be conducted under Part 91 as Private operations are far broader than AU, for example aerial photography ---- is private, there is no Aerial Work in the US system.
Tootle pip!!
It is worth noting that there are some fundamental differences between the US and Australian regulations in this area.
In the above, the hire pilot would have to have a CPL, even though the operation would be Part 91 private. FAA General Counsel takes such a narrow minded view of the regulations that say , if a pilot with a historic aircraft goes to an airshow, to even accept a can of coke and a hamburger, they must have a CPL ----- BUT ---- NONE of that position is based on risk assessment or "safety", but simply the rule that says that to receive compensation of any kind as a pilot, no matter how indirect, the said pilot must have a least a CPL.
So, it in no way relates to the position CASA is taking on Angel Flight.
Operations that can be conducted under Part 91 as Private operations are far broader than AU, for example aerial photography ---- is private, there is no Aerial Work in the US system.
Tootle pip!!
The "Angels Flights Saga' continues...…Note the last sentence, first paragraph...….
Received this morning 0850WST.....0050Z.....
Dear Angel Flight Supporter
You will be aware that the government agency, CASA, has taken steps to restrict our volunteer pilots, and to ban helicopters, to the extent that the viability of the charity may be placed under threat. Despite repeated requests, the agency has declined to give us, or the Australian Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPS), any safety case, or risk analysis, to support these restrictions. Importantly, CASA has deliberately bypassed its own policies, protocols and ethical standards, by failing to adhere to its regulatory reform criteria. Instead, the CEO of CASA has issued a Direction, simply a ‘law’ which is signed by him. I have repeatedly asked the CEO why he has done this, and the response was, firstly, ‘because I have the authority’, and then when pressed further, ‘because it’s easy’.
I have asked the National Operations and Standards Exec Manager, what the new rules have to do with the two volunteer flight accidents which have occurred in the last 16 years (both involving bad weather), and his answer to me was to effect that they bore no relationship to the accidents. The ATSB (Safety Bureau) has not yet released its report into the last of these accidents, in 2017.
These accidents (two in 46,000 flights) are attracting unprecedented attention from CASA, and in particular, when compared with the high number of fatal accidents which have occurred in commercial operations in Australia during the same period. Initially, CASA was underpinning its rules on the basis that our passengers are ‘uninformed’ (that is, they don’t understand that they are not travelling on an airline or commercial operation, or understand the differences). We have provided CASA with our entire suite of documents which the pilots and passengers (and drivers) must read, sign and acknowledge, and the videos which the passengers must watch prior to flying. We are perplexed as to why CASA thinks that our disadvantaged rural passengers cannot understand what they read, see or sign.
They are also implying that they have no confidence in the training, testing and licensing of their own pilots. You all know that we only accept as volunteers, those pilots holding CASA licences, and flying CASA registered and maintained aircraft for private flight in Australia. Many of our volunteers are airline pilots, commercial pilots, and of course, private pilots. Their new rules do nothing to address CASA’s training or licensing issues – they merely seek to restrict those pilots, after issuing their licences, so that they can fly anyone else in Australia subject to the provisions of their licences, but not rural people coming into the cities with Angel Flight volunteer pilots for scheduled non-emergency medical appointments.
Angel Flight does not know why there has been such a concerted attack on these volunteer pilots and aircraft – given that it is CASA’s responsibility to ensure a proper level of training before issuing the licence – it is not Angel Flight’s job to take responsibility for training under CASA regulations: we rely on them to give licences only to those who have qualified.
After first alleging that they were introducing these rules, with what seemed undue haste just before Xmas, to improve safety (although they don’t relate to the two accidents since 2003), it then moved to relying on the ‘uninformed’ argument, then changed its thrust to ‘ we are doing what the USA is doing’. That is also grossly misleading, as the private flights in the USA are not regulated in this fashion. They only regulate what they regard to be commercial operations and give an exemption if they are flying for a charity. Finally, last Friday, the chair of the CASA board said we are not ‘technically private flights’. How that relates to their restrictive proposals is perplexing- particularly as CASA has never challenged our private status, and the statement bears no relationship to the proposed restrictions.
A very worrying event occurred last week – CASA called a regional TV station, offering them an exclusive statement if they would embargo the story until this Wednesday. That statement was from the chair of the CASA Board, Tony Matthews, who said CASA was going ahead with all but one of the rules. He alleged they were to table it in parliament on Tuesday, but not release that information until Wednesday – thereby limiting the time within which to lodge a Notice of Motion to Disallow the Directions. More worryingly, they did not tell Angel Flight about this – merely advised a TV station. Quite alarming behavior from a government agency, particularly that it issued the statement on 7 February, a mere 5 working days since the close of the brief public ‘consultation’ – there were 230 submissions, many of them being lodged on the last couple of days. It is difficult to see how they could come up with this decision if they were taking these submissions into account (and Angel Flight has privately received many copies of these). The leaked exclusive was then conveyed to The Australian newspaper, and published on 8th February : again, neither the CASA Board, nor CEO, nor anyone else from CASA, had advised Angel Flight of either its decision or its intention to make a statement or table the proposals, : there was no communication from the agency of any kind, nor to AOPA, represents thousands of general aviation pilots, and who had been communicating with CASA over the issue.
Angel Flight takes a proactive position in relation to safety, but does not accept that CASA should bypass proper regulatory reform procedures to rush these changes through, knowing they will have an adverse effect on these valuable services, and that they are unsupported by any safety case or risk analysis. This should be workshopped by industry and the submissions properly evaluated, and a safety risk analysis conducted and released, before reforms are proposed, and these should be done by regulatory amendment – the proposed administrative directive cuts across many regulations, pursuant to which the pilots achieved their licences. CASA appears to be saying that Angel Flight is responsible for CASA’s own licensing standards. This administrative directive both restricts the rights of pilots to fly under their CASA licences, and could jeopardise valuable volunteer work. Even more extraordinary is that CASA has banned helicopters from flying for Angel Flight, although there have been no heli accidents in the volunteer service,: more astounding is that CASA say it is acceptable to get the total aeronautical time required, in a helicopter, but then ban helicopters! This is particularly unfortunate when many of our rural people in flooded communities may need help getting their families to medical treatment when airfields are flooded. They have offered no explanation for this ban.
We urge you all, and your colleagues, to urgently contact both your local Member of the House of Representatives, and all Senators, requesting they lodge a Notice of Motion for Disallowance, so that the issue of safety can be assessed in a measured, educated, and fact-based fashion, adopting the usual protocols and industry input. There is only a brief window of opportunity to do this -the Notice must be lodged this week, possibly Wednesday, Thursday or Friday, on the basis that CASA will deliver it on Tuesday (but again, they have not allowed us this information – we are relying upon what the chair of their Board has said to a television station).
Let’s all pull together to help people in the bush have a better quality of life – contact all federal members of parliament now by email or phone (link to a list attached).
Senators: https://www.aph.gov.au/Senators_and_...=-1&gen=0&ps=0
Members: https://www.aph.gov.au/Senators_and_...=-1&gen=0&ps=0
Thanks for your support,
Marjorie Pagani CEO
Angel Flight
No Cheers Here....NOPE!! None at all....
Received this morning 0850WST.....0050Z.....
Dear Angel Flight Supporter
You will be aware that the government agency, CASA, has taken steps to restrict our volunteer pilots, and to ban helicopters, to the extent that the viability of the charity may be placed under threat. Despite repeated requests, the agency has declined to give us, or the Australian Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPS), any safety case, or risk analysis, to support these restrictions. Importantly, CASA has deliberately bypassed its own policies, protocols and ethical standards, by failing to adhere to its regulatory reform criteria. Instead, the CEO of CASA has issued a Direction, simply a ‘law’ which is signed by him. I have repeatedly asked the CEO why he has done this, and the response was, firstly, ‘because I have the authority’, and then when pressed further, ‘because it’s easy’.
I have asked the National Operations and Standards Exec Manager, what the new rules have to do with the two volunteer flight accidents which have occurred in the last 16 years (both involving bad weather), and his answer to me was to effect that they bore no relationship to the accidents. The ATSB (Safety Bureau) has not yet released its report into the last of these accidents, in 2017.
These accidents (two in 46,000 flights) are attracting unprecedented attention from CASA, and in particular, when compared with the high number of fatal accidents which have occurred in commercial operations in Australia during the same period. Initially, CASA was underpinning its rules on the basis that our passengers are ‘uninformed’ (that is, they don’t understand that they are not travelling on an airline or commercial operation, or understand the differences). We have provided CASA with our entire suite of documents which the pilots and passengers (and drivers) must read, sign and acknowledge, and the videos which the passengers must watch prior to flying. We are perplexed as to why CASA thinks that our disadvantaged rural passengers cannot understand what they read, see or sign.
They are also implying that they have no confidence in the training, testing and licensing of their own pilots. You all know that we only accept as volunteers, those pilots holding CASA licences, and flying CASA registered and maintained aircraft for private flight in Australia. Many of our volunteers are airline pilots, commercial pilots, and of course, private pilots. Their new rules do nothing to address CASA’s training or licensing issues – they merely seek to restrict those pilots, after issuing their licences, so that they can fly anyone else in Australia subject to the provisions of their licences, but not rural people coming into the cities with Angel Flight volunteer pilots for scheduled non-emergency medical appointments.
Angel Flight does not know why there has been such a concerted attack on these volunteer pilots and aircraft – given that it is CASA’s responsibility to ensure a proper level of training before issuing the licence – it is not Angel Flight’s job to take responsibility for training under CASA regulations: we rely on them to give licences only to those who have qualified.
After first alleging that they were introducing these rules, with what seemed undue haste just before Xmas, to improve safety (although they don’t relate to the two accidents since 2003), it then moved to relying on the ‘uninformed’ argument, then changed its thrust to ‘ we are doing what the USA is doing’. That is also grossly misleading, as the private flights in the USA are not regulated in this fashion. They only regulate what they regard to be commercial operations and give an exemption if they are flying for a charity. Finally, last Friday, the chair of the CASA board said we are not ‘technically private flights’. How that relates to their restrictive proposals is perplexing- particularly as CASA has never challenged our private status, and the statement bears no relationship to the proposed restrictions.
A very worrying event occurred last week – CASA called a regional TV station, offering them an exclusive statement if they would embargo the story until this Wednesday. That statement was from the chair of the CASA Board, Tony Matthews, who said CASA was going ahead with all but one of the rules. He alleged they were to table it in parliament on Tuesday, but not release that information until Wednesday – thereby limiting the time within which to lodge a Notice of Motion to Disallow the Directions. More worryingly, they did not tell Angel Flight about this – merely advised a TV station. Quite alarming behavior from a government agency, particularly that it issued the statement on 7 February, a mere 5 working days since the close of the brief public ‘consultation’ – there were 230 submissions, many of them being lodged on the last couple of days. It is difficult to see how they could come up with this decision if they were taking these submissions into account (and Angel Flight has privately received many copies of these). The leaked exclusive was then conveyed to The Australian newspaper, and published on 8th February : again, neither the CASA Board, nor CEO, nor anyone else from CASA, had advised Angel Flight of either its decision or its intention to make a statement or table the proposals, : there was no communication from the agency of any kind, nor to AOPA, represents thousands of general aviation pilots, and who had been communicating with CASA over the issue.
Angel Flight takes a proactive position in relation to safety, but does not accept that CASA should bypass proper regulatory reform procedures to rush these changes through, knowing they will have an adverse effect on these valuable services, and that they are unsupported by any safety case or risk analysis. This should be workshopped by industry and the submissions properly evaluated, and a safety risk analysis conducted and released, before reforms are proposed, and these should be done by regulatory amendment – the proposed administrative directive cuts across many regulations, pursuant to which the pilots achieved their licences. CASA appears to be saying that Angel Flight is responsible for CASA’s own licensing standards. This administrative directive both restricts the rights of pilots to fly under their CASA licences, and could jeopardise valuable volunteer work. Even more extraordinary is that CASA has banned helicopters from flying for Angel Flight, although there have been no heli accidents in the volunteer service,: more astounding is that CASA say it is acceptable to get the total aeronautical time required, in a helicopter, but then ban helicopters! This is particularly unfortunate when many of our rural people in flooded communities may need help getting their families to medical treatment when airfields are flooded. They have offered no explanation for this ban.
We urge you all, and your colleagues, to urgently contact both your local Member of the House of Representatives, and all Senators, requesting they lodge a Notice of Motion for Disallowance, so that the issue of safety can be assessed in a measured, educated, and fact-based fashion, adopting the usual protocols and industry input. There is only a brief window of opportunity to do this -the Notice must be lodged this week, possibly Wednesday, Thursday or Friday, on the basis that CASA will deliver it on Tuesday (but again, they have not allowed us this information – we are relying upon what the chair of their Board has said to a television station).
Let’s all pull together to help people in the bush have a better quality of life – contact all federal members of parliament now by email or phone (link to a list attached).
Senators: https://www.aph.gov.au/Senators_and_...=-1&gen=0&ps=0
Members: https://www.aph.gov.au/Senators_and_...=-1&gen=0&ps=0
Thanks for your support,
Marjorie Pagani CEO
Angel Flight
No Cheers Here....NOPE!! None at all....
. I have repeatedly asked the CEO why he has done this, and the response was, firstly, ‘because I have the authority’, and then when pressed further, ‘because it’s easy’.
Emails sent, to my local member and all senators in my state.
Simple solution: get the public onside at avalon airshow. You have a stand. Write a flyer stating your case hand them out everywhere and invite the reader to go to the CASA stand and start asking pointed questions in a loud voice.
If the Airshow management objects and does not fulsomely support your actions BY A PUBLIC STATEMENT OF SUPPORT FOR ANGEL FLIGHT, THEN CALL ON AIRSHOW VOLUNTEERS TO WITHDRAW THEIR LABOR. All legal I believe.
I would also approach the RAAF, RFDS and medical services for statements of support.
If Angel Flight gets done over this way, then expect CASA to do it again to GFA, RAA, SAAA and anyone else, including the Avalon airshow itself. Time to draw a line in the sand.
CASA obviously wants to ban private flight and they will achieve it by slowly crushing the sector to death.
If the Airshow management objects and does not fulsomely support your actions BY A PUBLIC STATEMENT OF SUPPORT FOR ANGEL FLIGHT, THEN CALL ON AIRSHOW VOLUNTEERS TO WITHDRAW THEIR LABOR. All legal I believe.
I would also approach the RAAF, RFDS and medical services for statements of support.
If Angel Flight gets done over this way, then expect CASA to do it again to GFA, RAA, SAAA and anyone else, including the Avalon airshow itself. Time to draw a line in the sand.
CASA obviously wants to ban private flight and they will achieve it by slowly crushing the sector to death.
Last edited by Sunfish; 12th Feb 2019 at 03:17.
I was surprised to hear of the helicopter ban. So I can’t fly my state of the art twin engined EC135P2+ twin engined IFR helicopter, but I can fly a dirty old rented 172. Makes sense!
I suppose they will say they are complying with the CASA act.
” Safety must be the most important consideration “-
Only used against the weak of course.
Otherwise the tower at Wagga would be manned.
I wonder if the helicopter restriction has come from lobbying by the commercial helicopter industry?
i would have thought a modified “ informed consent “ document would have solved the claimed CASA problems.
More destuction of of the GA industry. I despair.
” Safety must be the most important consideration “-
Only used against the weak of course.
Otherwise the tower at Wagga would be manned.
I wonder if the helicopter restriction has come from lobbying by the commercial helicopter industry?
i would have thought a modified “ informed consent “ document would have solved the claimed CASA problems.
More destuction of of the GA industry. I despair.
Is there anything in the current Government POLICY relating to current CAsA Policy.re pvt flights
A recent statement to me by the PMO.. in words to the effect... policy must be followed.
In the late 90s with the COOP /Classification Of Operations Policy was NOT followed.
So, "policy" is whatever allows CAsA to do what they do...when it suits their purpose.
Recent legal statement makes the claim that dicking around with policy (deny/amend/revoke or vary) to suit the required agenda, is malpractice, malfeasance and defective administration.
Hey !, Mr Mathews wotcha doing ??
A recent statement to me by the PMO.. in words to the effect... policy must be followed.
In the late 90s with the COOP /Classification Of Operations Policy was NOT followed.
So, "policy" is whatever allows CAsA to do what they do...when it suits their purpose.
Recent legal statement makes the claim that dicking around with policy (deny/amend/revoke or vary) to suit the required agenda, is malpractice, malfeasance and defective administration.
Hey !, Mr Mathews wotcha doing ??
Is there anything in the current Government POLICY relating to current CAsA Policy.re pvt flights
A recent statement to me by the PMO.. in words to the effect... policy must be followed.
In the late 90s with the COOP /Classification Of Operations Policy was NOT followed.
So, "policy" is whatever allows CAsA to do what they do...when it suits their purpose.
Recent legal statement makes the claim that dicking around with policy (deny/amend/revoke or vary) to suit the required agenda, is malpractice, malfeasance and defective administration.
Hey !, Mr Mathews wotcha doing ??
A recent statement to me by the PMO.. in words to the effect... policy must be followed.
In the late 90s with the COOP /Classification Of Operations Policy was NOT followed.
So, "policy" is whatever allows CAsA to do what they do...when it suits their purpose.
Recent legal statement makes the claim that dicking around with policy (deny/amend/revoke or vary) to suit the required agenda, is malpractice, malfeasance and defective administration.
Hey !, Mr Mathews wotcha doing ??
(f) an exercise of a discretionary power in accordance with a rule or policy without regard to the merits of the particular case;
If you want to know the legal relevance of policy to administrative decision making, google the phrase. Plenty of stuff published on the internet by folks who are experts on the subject.
Just another Gibson gob-off
Neither of the accident pilots were 'just out of training' ( so earlier posts on this thread state)
Its the CAsA way.....pluck any BS thought from mid air and chuck it into the mix.
Just shows how ignorant he is on the subject...HE, of anybody should know by finding out (easily)..or just too lazy?,.. the pilot experience criteria req'd by Angel Flight etc.
Trust everyone is busy emailing Senators for the Notice of Motion of Disallowance.
Neither of the accident pilots were 'just out of training' ( so earlier posts on this thread state)
Its the CAsA way.....pluck any BS thought from mid air and chuck it into the mix.
Just shows how ignorant he is on the subject...HE, of anybody should know by finding out (easily)..or just too lazy?,.. the pilot experience criteria req'd by Angel Flight etc.
Trust everyone is busy emailing Senators for the Notice of Motion of Disallowance.
Actually, it has always been thus, even preceding the FARs in 1957. NZ is more or less the same.
It gets so silly that PPLs taking part in the mas T-6 flights at Oshkosh cannot even except the free smoke oil --- off-spec diesel always donated by one of the oil companies --- said PPLs have to trudge off the nearest truck stop with a couple of 5 gallon drums and buy it.
But, it is much more straightforward to get a CPL in US.
Tootle pip!!
As mentioned the airshow is the best place it seems to get this to the public.
Could even be a passive approach handing out information flyers near the CASA booth.
Of course many Angel Flight supporters could ask CASA representives all day everday about what’s happening.
The general public have no idea about this.
Use the airshow to your advantage, Australia free speech, try and get the media involved.
Not an easy task, very easy for me to type, I won’t be there. I’ve never done an Angel Flight, have had no direct involvement in anyway, I do see what is a good cause though.
I wish you good luck. Take them on in a stage where they will not want to be brought to account.
It seems like it’s just meant to be with the airshow fast approaching.
Lastly do you have past users of Angel Flight who can be there with you advocating the necessity of the service?
Could even be a passive approach handing out information flyers near the CASA booth.
Of course many Angel Flight supporters could ask CASA representives all day everday about what’s happening.
The general public have no idea about this.
Use the airshow to your advantage, Australia free speech, try and get the media involved.
Not an easy task, very easy for me to type, I won’t be there. I’ve never done an Angel Flight, have had no direct involvement in anyway, I do see what is a good cause though.
I wish you good luck. Take them on in a stage where they will not want to be brought to account.
It seems like it’s just meant to be with the airshow fast approaching.
Lastly do you have past users of Angel Flight who can be there with you advocating the necessity of the service?
I reckon that might quickly lead to a phone call from CASA to security, followed by a fast ejection of protesters from the airshow. Not complying with the terms and conditions of their entry being quoted.
Aye but it’s Australia and if that happened....... Free publicity and a guaranteed media showing.
I am saying make sure it’s passive not aggressive.
Is it to late or do Angel Flight already have a stand?
As I type this it’s on the Australian news tv channel in Hong Kong.
I am not advocating a protest but if that’s what it’s going to take to get the general public onside then... Honestly I would love to be able to assist, distance does not allow.
Good luck Angel Flight you are a needed service!
I am saying make sure it’s passive not aggressive.
Is it to late or do Angel Flight already have a stand?
As I type this it’s on the Australian news tv channel in Hong Kong.
I am not advocating a protest but if that’s what it’s going to take to get the general public onside then... Honestly I would love to be able to assist, distance does not allow.
Good luck Angel Flight you are a needed service!