How CASA Helps Regional Australia.
Thread Starter
How CASA Helps Regional Australia.
The GPs do the best they can, but for cardiologists, oncologists, dermatologists, neurosurgeons, and neurologists, I have to get to Brisbane to see those. The expectation for me to sit in the car for six hours' drive for a short appointment down there, and then have to face six hours coming back, it's torture, pure torture."……
……….President Fiona Hodson said the organisation's annual survey showed that 53 per cent of chronic pain sufferers in regional Australia were not getting the medical help they needed due to their location. Ms Hodson said the lack of services often led people to self-medicate, and the recent survey of 1,500 chronic pain sufferers showed 48 per cent used alcohol to self-medicate.
That figure was 28 per cent for cigarettes and 26 per cent for non-medically prescribed cannabis.
Ms Hodson said the survey also showed that 70 per cent of chronic pain sufferers had gone without food in order to continue treating their condition, and 55 per cent said they had not been able to see a specialist due to the cost.
Having private health insurance did not seem to help either, as 65 per cent of respondents with policies said they were still going without food and fuel to get treatment.
"Health services and treatment options, which are inaccessible due to remoteness and also unaffordable for many, can force people living with chronic pain to seek out unsafe ways to manage and cope with their pain," Ms Hodson said.
……….President Fiona Hodson said the organisation's annual survey showed that 53 per cent of chronic pain sufferers in regional Australia were not getting the medical help they needed due to their location. Ms Hodson said the lack of services often led people to self-medicate, and the recent survey of 1,500 chronic pain sufferers showed 48 per cent used alcohol to self-medicate.
That figure was 28 per cent for cigarettes and 26 per cent for non-medically prescribed cannabis.
Ms Hodson said the survey also showed that 70 per cent of chronic pain sufferers had gone without food in order to continue treating their condition, and 55 per cent said they had not been able to see a specialist due to the cost.
Having private health insurance did not seem to help either, as 65 per cent of respondents with policies said they were still going without food and fuel to get treatment.
"Health services and treatment options, which are inaccessible due to remoteness and also unaffordable for many, can force people living with chronic pain to seek out unsafe ways to manage and cope with their pain," Ms Hodson said.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-08-...pain/101286638
Unfortunately Angelflight has been it's own worst enemy more than CASA destroying it. With at least two accidents where patients were killed and then claiming that CASA is responsible for the level of competence a pilot has, rather than having some form of review, training or checking system for its' own pilots. Aeromedical flights is a well known danger area for pushing into situations to get patients where they need to go and whilst this is not emergency transfers there is still a lot of pressure to get people where they want to be. Questions have to be asked why the service was needed at all for the Mt Gambier accident when they could have bought tickets on Rex for a few hundred $ and AF paid the tickets instead of a light aircraft.
If you operate a truck, bus, taxi and so on, you can't blame the road authority for driver standards, that's up to the operator to maintain. Even on the road hospitals and other healthcare services pay a high price for simple patient transfers by professional companies.
If you operate a truck, bus, taxi and so on, you can't blame the road authority for driver standards, that's up to the operator to maintain. Even on the road hospitals and other healthcare services pay a high price for simple patient transfers by professional companies.
Unfortunately Angelflight has been it's own worst enemy more than CASA destroying it. With at least two accidents where patients were killed and then claiming that CASA is responsible for the level of competence a pilot has, rather than having some form of review, training or checking system for its' own pilots. Aeromedical flights is a well known danger area for pushing into situations to get patients where they need to go and whilst this is not emergency transfers there is still a lot of pressure to get people where they want to be. Questions have to be asked why the service was needed at all for the Mt Gambier accident when they could have bought tickets on Rex for a few hundred $ and AF paid the tickets instead of a light aircraft.
If you operate a truck, bus, taxi and so on, you can't blame the road authority for driver standards, that's up to the operator to maintain. Even on the road hospitals and other healthcare services pay a high price for simple patient transfers by professional companies.
If you operate a truck, bus, taxi and so on, you can't blame the road authority for driver standards, that's up to the operator to maintain. Even on the road hospitals and other healthcare services pay a high price for simple patient transfers by professional companies.
Angelflight isn't an operator of anything. It simply coordinates volunteers.
Angelflight is entitled, like anyone else, to assume that the holder of a licence - of whatever kind - is competent to hold that licence and complies with the conditions on it. People do it all day, every day, when they jump on a train or into an aircraft or buy food from a shop.
Political pressure resulted in a regulatory change, supported by spun statistics and without any cost-benefit analysis. "Some people have died so some law must be made to fix it" was the response of our 'leaders' in Parliament.
Please tell us: How many people who would otherwise have been carried on Angel Flights, but for the regulatory change, have died of their condition for lack of treatment or on the road travelling for treatment? Don't know? Nor does CASA. CASA doesn't care.
VFR flight into IMC is not an unknown issue to the regulator. Nor is 'get home-itis'. More laws are not the answer, particularly in aviation.
Anyone that organises an activity becomes responsible for its operation. Angelflight is the responsible organisation in this case as they arranged the service between the public member and private pilot. They then hold the duty of care to ensure the service is safe and adequate. Whether you make profit or not matters nowt, like sayimg UBER is not responsible for its drivers.
By the way the ATSB basically said the same thing, so you might be out of step with reality.
By the way the ATSB basically said the same thing, so you might be out of step with reality.
Thread Starter
43inches, Uber isn’t responsible for its drivers. Neither are taxi owners. From Ubers terms and conditions:
’
’
The Uber Services are made available solely for your personal, non-commercial use, unless Uber has agreed with you otherwise in a separate agreement. You acknowledge that: (a) Uber does not provide transportation services or function as a transportation carrier; (b) all such transportation services are provided by independent third party contractors who are not employed by Uber or any of its affiliates; (c) Uber does not provide delivery services; and (d) delivery services may be provided by an Uber affiliate (in its capacity as a delivery services provider) in accordance with the Uber Delivery Terms or a Third Party Provider, if you have purchased delivery services from that Uber affiliate (in its capacity as a delivery services provider) or Third Party Provider via an Application. Uber accepts liability for the Uber Services and Application that it provides to you subject to these Uber Terms. Third Party Providers are solely responsible for the services they provide to you. If an Uber affiliate provides Uber Delivery Services to you, that affiliate is solely responsible for the Uber Delivery Services it provides to you in accordance with the Uber Delivery Terms.
UBER is currently being sued in the US for numerous sexual assaults that have been committed by UBER drivers, will be a good test of how responsible for their drivers the courts feel they are. In the UK UBER drivers have been legally termed employees of the company and therefore the company is directly responsible for their wellfare, conduct and entitlements. They had the same 'contractor' argument in the US and UK, but it seems when challenged in court it doesn't stack up. You can write whatever legal jargon you want until its challenged in a court, then the courts decide if your jargon matches your actual conduct. The main issue is getting the cash to challenge UBER in court, as both the above were/are done as class actions. In Australia it would only take a class action of drivers/taskers to push for consideration as employees rather than contractors for things to change.
I am aware that individuals have requested FWO make rulings on UBER and failed in that they upheld the drivers as contractors, however the fact a driver can not set the payment rate is a key argument that courts overseas have ruled in favor of drivers being employees. UBER post the FWO decision then required drivers to have an ABN and GST registry to use the app, in some vague attempt to say that the drivers were definitely contractors, however its still a huge grey area.
With regard to Taxis the owner is responsible for the vehicle and whatever damage it may inflict. The driver of the vehicle is paid as an employee and therefore indemnified and covered by the employers insurance and required conditions and entitlements. In Australia vehicles are insured for accidents, the driver just has to be approved by the insurance company. That's for accidents, but in the case you don't vet your drivers as fit and proper to provide safe transport with adequate training then things can get nasty if the driver does something improper outside the rules.
Only have to remember that a QF ground employee sucessfully sued QF and a 16 year old learner driver that he had let drive the company car he was in charge of and was awarded millions in damages, the payment of which to be shared between QF (vehicle owner) and the Driver.
https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ou...d33e5b8457c90f
I am aware that individuals have requested FWO make rulings on UBER and failed in that they upheld the drivers as contractors, however the fact a driver can not set the payment rate is a key argument that courts overseas have ruled in favor of drivers being employees. UBER post the FWO decision then required drivers to have an ABN and GST registry to use the app, in some vague attempt to say that the drivers were definitely contractors, however its still a huge grey area.
With regard to Taxis the owner is responsible for the vehicle and whatever damage it may inflict. The driver of the vehicle is paid as an employee and therefore indemnified and covered by the employers insurance and required conditions and entitlements. In Australia vehicles are insured for accidents, the driver just has to be approved by the insurance company. That's for accidents, but in the case you don't vet your drivers as fit and proper to provide safe transport with adequate training then things can get nasty if the driver does something improper outside the rules.
Only have to remember that a QF ground employee sucessfully sued QF and a 16 year old learner driver that he had let drive the company car he was in charge of and was awarded millions in damages, the payment of which to be shared between QF (vehicle owner) and the Driver.
https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ou...d33e5b8457c90f
Last edited by 43Inches; 2nd Aug 2022 at 13:26.
Thread Starter
Mate, those are all ‘’for profit’’ operations.
‘’How is it that I can take 5 year old Timmy from Kerang to melbourne in order to see a Harry Potter play. However neither myself or my aircraft can do the identical flight if the destination is the children’s hospital:
…. Which begs the question; what if I take Timmy and his mum to the zoo and AFTERWARDS visit a cancer specialist?
BTW, i agree that there needs to be solid induction training for volunteer pilots.
’’’PS - the word “compensation” is creeping into regulations. guess why?
Because compensation is a much broader term than “payment” the FAA is pioneering this attack.
e; “5.4 Compensation. Receipt of anything of value that is contingent upon the pilot acting as pilot in command (PIC) of an aircraft.”
‘’Technically, a kiss on the cheek from a grateful sister is Compensation” CASA is trying to strangle all forms of aviation, including all charities.
‘’How is it that I can take 5 year old Timmy from Kerang to melbourne in order to see a Harry Potter play. However neither myself or my aircraft can do the identical flight if the destination is the children’s hospital:
…. Which begs the question; what if I take Timmy and his mum to the zoo and AFTERWARDS visit a cancer specialist?
BTW, i agree that there needs to be solid induction training for volunteer pilots.
’’’PS - the word “compensation” is creeping into regulations. guess why?
Because compensation is a much broader term than “payment” the FAA is pioneering this attack.
e; “5.4 Compensation. Receipt of anything of value that is contingent upon the pilot acting as pilot in command (PIC) of an aircraft.”
‘’Technically, a kiss on the cheek from a grateful sister is Compensation” CASA is trying to strangle all forms of aviation, including all charities.
In the two tragic AF accidents, the decisions to proceed were made by the pilots alone. Pilot in “Command”
In the circumstances if those pilots had been carry a load of newspapers the results would have been the same.
A crash. Both made worse of course by the human cargo.
It's not AF.. it’s the mind set of pressing on when one should not.
We’ve all done it at some stage…some luck in and some luck out badly. Skills not as sharp as they thought with fatal results.
Its all happened before and will again because of individual decisions. One needs the bejezus scared out of one as a salutary lesson to heed.. Don’t Do That !!
In the circumstances if those pilots had been carry a load of newspapers the results would have been the same.
A crash. Both made worse of course by the human cargo.
It's not AF.. it’s the mind set of pressing on when one should not.
We’ve all done it at some stage…some luck in and some luck out badly. Skills not as sharp as they thought with fatal results.
Its all happened before and will again because of individual decisions. One needs the bejezus scared out of one as a salutary lesson to heed.. Don’t Do That !!
The reason I said AF is its own enemy is the way they have handled each. Obviously when these events occur the public believes the org should have some responsibility. However AF maintained it was CASA who was responsible for pilot standards. Yes they are for setting the minimum acceptable standards, however not the standard required to perform aeromedical transfers on a PPL. So when they keep saying CASA is responsible inevitably CASA will beef up the rules around this sector. They then cant complain when the rules toughen up to provide some level of competence. What they should have done is implement some form of mentoring and training many years ago esp after the first accident.
mmmm, I dunno. But if an organisation is organising transport for people they should have some sort of oversight. There are some drivers, fully licenced, registered and insured that I wouldn't let my family members get in the car with. Same goes with some pilots.
‘’How is it that I can take 5 year old Timmy from Kerang to melbourne in order to see a Harry Potter play. However neither myself or my aircraft can do the identical flight if the destination is the children’s hospital:
I think they provide a great service, but I feel some mistakes are being made in regard to what they think is right in regard to responsibilities. Each incident or accident just puts more pressure on CASA to actually regulate the sector, if they can be proactive in self managing the risks then CASA will ignore them.
I would personally be quite happy to donate my time and aircraft if I still owned one for this service and it was possible.
