Fair point. I don't know if that is correct but it could well be. It still doesn't change my opinion of the NVFR rating though.

Without getting into the fact that helicopters crash more often than fixed wings, how many commercial twin turbine helicopter flights proceed incident free every day compared to private NVFR fixed wing private flights every day?...Thats like saying that more people are killed in road car crashes than in road motorbike crashes therefore car travel is more dangerous.
Nup, just the NVFR rating that allows pilots with very little training on instruments to end up in conditions where they need to fly on instruments to survive.
The fact is, that if you fly at night there are times when you need to be flying soley by reference to your instruments and I personally don't believe that the NVFR rating prepares people well enough for that situation.
It feels like people think I'm making a judgement on their abilities or something from the responses. I'm not. I just don't think the rating prepares people well enough. I understand that others don't agree with me and thats fine.
Cheers, Framer

framer;

Have you read the NVFR syllabus? It clearly lays down what conditions are NVFR and what is not. Just like day VFR but with a navaid endorsement and instrument skills. (there used to be a class 4 day rating). So by this reckoning, is having additional skills a danger to normal day VFR.

Day VFR requirement for end of daylight doesn't co-incide with calculated end of daylight BTW. Nor does helicopter visual reference mirror fixed wing VFR.

I haven't read it recently and if it has changed in the last decade to require the same number of hours under the hood as an IFR rating then I'l shift from my current position and consider my other posts to be in error. Is that the case? How many hours under the hood are required in 2011 for the NVFR?
Yeah I remember that from when I had one. Do you think that the 'instrument skills' are robust enough considering the situations you can easily get yourself into flying NVFR? ie black hole situations? I don't. Thats my whole point. Either axe it, or up the training on the clocks so that when the pilot becomes confused they have the training to revert to the correct attitude and power settings even though their ears and bum are screaming at them to do something else. Thats still my opinion after the debate thus far but I will happily change it if you can point out why my position isn't right. Cheers.

It is not Red Tape to develop a position wherein an otherwise innocent / uneducated passenger can reasonably expect to survive a flight. Said passenger has grown up with motorcars and has some level of understanding of the risks associated therewith. Airline travel in Australia is statistically the safest way to travel and that is also generally accepted amongst the general population, but Joe Public does not necessarily have the same level of understanding relating to light aeroplanes.

The recent study released by ATSB shows GA Charter is 4.3 times more likely to be involved in a fatal accident than RPT operations. GA private ops are higher risk again. How many AF passengers would know this? The safest GA operation is EMS, despite their operations in all weathers and at all hours into often rudimentary landing sites. In light of this, and the Sydney Mojave crash, perhaps NSW Health should reconsider their 'lowest bidder' air ambulance operation. RFDS might not be the cheapest air ambulance service, but they are the safest.

In Qld, non-urgent patients (and if necessary escorts) are eligible to be carried by airline at no cost for specialist treatment not available locally, to a suitable major regional centre or the State Capital, and once there they have any required accommodation subsidised. Non-urgent patients whose condition requires in-flight management are transported by RFDS. Is this not the case in the rest of the country?

I was an AF pilot. At that time, there was no form of pilot checking, other than holding a copy of licence & medical on file. It was up to the pilot to declare whether they ere legally and operationally up to the task, when they either bid for a mission or were called by the coordinators.

Is AF actually a private operation? One of the criteria of the definition (hire or reward) is that the pilot receives no benefit, but AF does provide fuel through Air BP which surely constitutes 'reward', doesn't it?

A 'private' operation, where there is a well-funded administrative base, which advertises its service heavily in mainstream media, where pilots and aircraft are 'tasked' on 'missions' with some form of time constraint (appointments etc) doesn't sound much like a 'private' operation.

The AF website declares it pilots to be "heroes', and lists a 'mission log'. This underlying philosophy is one of the key points identified in the US study into EMS crashes.

This sad event will raise many questions, questions that probably should have been raised before the show got off the ground.

In the Weeds, Perhaps you should contribute to the lake eyre thread instead of this one where the main consensus is that it was likely a case of disorientation on takeoff in a black hole scenario. Others words not mine though I gotta agree it is starting to look that way. You are obviously far superior in all matters aeronautical to the rest of us.
But back to the point of this thread, it is not the rating that makes a flight unsafe but how it is conducted and the fact you can never avoid pilot error entirely. How do you explain the Air France crash into the ocean then? Even the French safety inspectors put it down partly to pilot error for failure to reconise and recover from a stall.

framer;

Your post in reply to mine has haunted me in that you are essentially right and I have been just another rating collector. I say this without malice because I now see what I did to gain (the then), class 3 rating was to do the simulator work associated with it and collect a NVFR, class 4, along the way with the SE night flights.

Despite rarely using it to flight plan except for late arrivals it gave me little real need of the paperwork, it's just a VFR rating that extends the EOD to me.

In the US a VFR pilot can fly day or night and there is no such rating.

It's either VFR or it's not regardless of time of day.

Perhaps Australia could unburden itself of more red tape with a simple night check- and for cross country's add on Navaid endorsements to his day VFR.

However you simply can't have a bit each way.

Any further news on the mother?
A172

A spokeswoman for the Royal Melbourne Hospital said Mrs Twigg's condition had improved from critical to serious overnight.

Mrs Twigg's husband, Len, is travelling to Melbourne today from their hometown of Nhill to be by his wife's side.


Read more: Plane crash mum's condition improves | Jacinda Twigg, Don Kernot

Good News,
cheers
A172

PA31-350 - Chieftain
 

Come on - don't try to blame the PA31 for Monarch or Whyalla.

Whyalla Incident:

The link with Whyalla to a regulator who blamed every thing else except themselves is apparent from the civil law case in the US - CASA and a failure to deal with an AD on TIO-540 crankshafts and properly promulgate information.

In the case of Monarch - from the ATSB report:

On Friday 11 June 1993, at about 1918 EST, Piper PA31-350 Navajo Chieftain aircraft, VH-NDU, while on a right base leg for a landing approach to runway 01 in conditions of low cloud and darkness, struck trees at a height of 275 feet above the elevation of the aerodrome at Young, New South Wales, and crashed. The aircraft, which was being operated as Monarch Airlines flight OB301 on a regular public transport service from Sydney to Young, was destroyed by impact forces and post crash fire. All seven occupants, including the two pilots, suffered fatal injuries.
The investigation found that the circumstances of the accident were consistent with
controlled flight into terrain. Descent below the minimum circling altitude without
adequate visual reference was the culminating factor in a combination of local
contributing factors and organisational failures. The local contributing factors included poor weather conditions, equipment deficiencies, inadequate procedures, inaccurate visual perception, and possible skill fatigue. Organisational failures were identified relating to the management of the airline by the company, and the regulation and licensing of its operations by the Civil Aviation Authority.

Not the fault of the PA31-350 at all.

Yes a very serious defect indeed. The autopilot was U/S. It was replaced on the flight from memory, with a second pilot.

The CAA were not without serious questions to answer either WRT proceedures and maintenance, but then like current Labor policy of recent, the plebs have short memories and if you say the same thing over and over, it becomes fact.

Whyalla was a tragic joke played on the public by CASA.

i would be very interested to know how many hours under the hood they have to do in the USA v's in Australia.(I doubt the answer will help my argument but I genuinely believe in my position so thats ok.) Also, I think it is a bit different in Aus as the type of flying is diferent. In the USA there are less remote townships requiring a NVFR flight across country and out of sight of ground lighting due to the large population.
I would like to know the minimum hours under the hood required to gain a NVFR rating in Australia v's the minimum to gain an IFR rating as well.
Can anyone help me there? Any current instructors know the answer?
Cheers, Framer

The two aren't mutually exclusive! Also, your inference is that the passenger of a private flight can not reasonably expect to survive a flight.

Would you support a public transport operator style accreditation system (as for private Bus/Rail/Tram operators) for HACC/Community funded volunteer cars, driven by the public? These services perform the same service as AF in regional areas, only in cars.

Just as any pilot would for their own missions.

Cost sharing is allowed for a Private flight.

AF act as a 'broker' to find empty seats on private flights that are going to/from a destination desired by the passenger. If the pilot decides to make that a trip on it's own, that is up to him/her. They do not 'task' missions any more than a private pilot who needs to attend a meeting does, or a pilot who decides to fly some friends for a weekend away.

They are!

AF is a perfectly legal, and commendable endeavour. The inference that a PPL endorsed pilot should not be allowed to carry passengers is a poor one.

Aviation in Australia needs LESS regulation, not more, and seeking to have a sub-set of private flights operate under quasi-commercial regulation is a VERY slippery slope.

Apologies if my post sounds attacking, it is not meant to be (i'm in a hurry :))

Up into the air, You misunderstand my point. I never said there was anything wrong with the PA31-350. My point was if you want to ban NVFR as some do then ban single pilot IFR also as that rating also has many fatalities. None of which I support by the way but merely point out you can't have it both ways. Frank is correct the Monarch accident did have a u/s auto pilot and to get around the regs at the time Monarch then carried a second pilot who if my memory is correct was later found to be very inexperianced and in an operation like that,little more than a passenger himself. The aircraft flew into a hill approaching Young airport in cloud carrying out a NDB approach.
As for Whyalla yes there was a bad batch of crankshafts that caused the engine failure of one engine, the other was found with holes in the top of the piston due it was reported to having an overlean mixture. Some pilot error also came into it at the inquest due to the above and also the route flown as the aircraft was reported to be "in trouble and sounding like rough running" over the town of Althorp before crossing the gulf. Why the pilot did not hug the coast towards Pirie before crossing at a narrow point was never known. However it was suggested at the inquest he may have been confused with the illusion of being closer to Whyalla than he was as at night over water the lights can appear much closer than they really are.

Media report:

The survivor has been woken from an induced coma.

Maybe she may have some recollection of the events leading to to this tragedy.

In reference to the Whyalla Airlines accident, the radar track showed a decrease in GS and heading deviation/s somewhere near Port Wakefield, which to me indicates the engine failure occurred well before crossing the water.

Personally I think that NVFR flights can easily turn into single pilot IFR flights for periods of time, until visual reference to lights or the horizon is regained. I also don't believe that the training should equip you with the same instrument experience in order to get you through those moments/minutes.
NVFR = :eek:

I was of the belief that in the Whyalla crash that indeed the first engine did cease before the over-water segment of the flight began. Pilot radioed base and was told to keep going and legally he was entitled to.

One wonders if aviators like those brave pilots in the US mail service & others like Amelia Earhart & Charles Lindburgh are rolling about in their collective graves, thinking what a bunch of soft c*cks.
no further corospondence entered in to.
Have a lovely day,
A172

You mean all those DEAD aviators?

As one who has done a few Angel Flights -

AngelFlight does not task anyone to do a flight. The pilot volunteers for it. Having said that there are quite a few AF flights on offer with late in the day departures that I am not willing to undertake because of the hour. I have mentioned this to AF and their response was they will pay for overnight if needed. Personally I'll stick to daylight flying thanks, even when IFR.

AngelFlight does not pressure any pilot to complete. Quite the reverse. I have been called by AF offering to cancel on a day when I was willing to go. Any pressure to get to the destination is self induced by the pilot. I have diverted for weather when close to the destination on two occasions and the pax has happily arranged to be picked up from there.

I agree withe the view expressed by others that if you kill AngelFlight, the only people who will suffer are the deserving pax.

All AF pilots are required to fly a public liability insured aircraft, and I believe AF has its own insurance as well.

The view that there should be higher standards when you carry AF pax compared to flying alone is crap. I value my neck as much (if not more) than anyone elses. I apply the same standard to ALL flights.

So do I.

I agree that that is neccesary to keep it going. The NVFR rating shouldn't be available to commercial flights either. Ifr or VFR, no inbetween.

exactly & including your namesake HH, if it wasn't for them you would be still sailing & cycling.
(damn I said no corrospondence would be entered into) :ugh:

OverFienD, a pity you were so rushed that you didn't take the time to read and understand.

In no particular order -

Cost sharing on a private flight requires all participants to contribute equally. This is not the case with AF. Pilots may use their own aircraft or hire an aircraft, which the passengers do not contribute to the cost of; but the pilots do receive a benefit in fuel - ie it costs less than it otherwise would to do the AF trip.

The Red Tape you refer to has as its intent, the safety of all people participating in aviation. It is, to a greater or lesser extent, necessary. It may be that the investigation shows more 'Red Tape' applied to this organisations activities will make it safer. Where you get the two inferences you refer to is beyond me.

HACC buses are driven by accredited people (at least they are where I come from - maybe your area is different). Volunteer organisations have both government and their own mandated standards for volunteers, such as Blue Cards as an example. AF possibly needs more or higher standards if they are transporting the general public rather than their personal family or friends.

Private pilots don't fly missions. Private operations don't involve heroes. Check the NTSB reviews of causes of EMS crashes in USA for the basis to this. A 'mission' orientation and the hero appellation are tangibly dangerous as contributing factors to a 'must do' mindset.

AF doesn't act as a seat finder on already planned flights, it asks pilots to undertake a flight for a specific purpose.

Having a quasi-commercial operation working under the regulations governing private operations is a VERY slippery slope.

Framer, single engine NVFR is not allowed by commercial flights.

Al,
great response.

Cost sharing on a pvt flight actually doesn't require that the costs are shared equally. It actually denotes that the pilot must contribute a MINIMUM of his share of the cost basis. So if Mobil or what ever money gouging fuel company pays for the fuel, the pilot will have always contributed a greater share of the flights cost.

If this does not happen to be the case, you will probably find buried in all the crap that comes out of government a single paragraph expempting AF pilots from total adherance. The beaurocrat that proposed this, probably got a pay rise as the gov knows this course is cheaper than providing the service they collect taxes to provide.

So BLOODY true!!! I was reading the crap last week calling Cadel Evans a Hero..........not to me!!! A hero to me is the man who fights for his country, or stands up to a mugging or rushes into a burning house and drags out the occupants. Cadel Evans is a Champion!. The people who fly AF tasks, are Good Samaritans. Correct terminology should be applied to what a person strives to achieve.

REALLY!!! after all that has been said, you come up with this!!!
As someone else already pointed out, would you rather be flying in a CHARTER with a 200 hour cpl who is more interested in his hours/ego or a 500+ hour PPL who is striving on every flight to demonstrate his professionalism? Lets face it, the PPL at that level has no ambition other than to complete a safe flight. Take it from the boys that go on the BPPP's..........PPL's achieving higher standards than ATPL's on type...


-------------------------------------------------------------------

Realistically,
unless we can force the government to either a)put doctors in places needed or b) pay for the transportation of these patients, we should all get behind the people who fly AF tasks and support them. If we don't, a ****load of nice people/kids are going to find medical help inaccessible, or as someone else put it, dangerously accessible (long road trips)

If we run a thread denigrating AF's efforts then the self effacing 'crats will help CASA shut it down. The only positive in that I see is a fat bonus for the 'crat that signs it off as a job well done.

Cheers
Jas

Fair enough. But besides the argument, CASA clearly don't have a difficulty with it.

I believe the saying "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" is apt!

From here:

If your meaning is other than it reads on this point, I.e. That an AF passenger on a pvt flight, cannot currently expect to survive a flight, then the error is mine !

Nope. Just (drivers) licensed people. Not all these services are buses. Same as meals on wheels. I'm sure most AF pilots would be willing to undergo a police check, to qualify for volunteer status, possibly their ASIC would do.

Not really sure what your definition argument regarding missions is about. The point remains that pilots (even lowly vfr ppls) are aware that they are sometimes under pressure from various sources to complete a flight (mission). Pilots are also acutely aware that the responsibility for the safety of that flight falls on them (notwithstanding the fact that it is also their own safety).

Private operations don't involve heroes, eh? Possibly the recipients of AF's may disagree. Didn't the inhabitants of some of the earthquake and hurricane affected areas in the northern hemisphere receive aid and mercy flights from private ops? If so, that also seems pretty heroic. IMO.

The seat brokering argument is just that...

Yes, clearly every private pilot who flies for his own business needs (who are as 'quasi-commercial' as AF) as well as AF are sliding down the slippery non-regulated pole of dooooooooom! :P

Framer...dude!!! stick your head in a rule book!!!

Charter category.

Day VFR flight. PIC must hold an NFVR and aircraft legal for NVFR

Night VFR. PIC must hold CIR, and Aircraft duly maintained.

Jas

What book are you reading from? I would suggest it is a little more complicated than that!

Can you point me to a reference where it says single engine NVFR commercial operations (passenger) are legal, I must be missing something.

Reading some of the comments on this thread, I get the feeling that CAO 40.2 is going to come as a complete surprise for some....

(This refers to NVFR - valid for private & aerial works only in SE aircraft)

OverFienD, you really have a problem reading & comprehending.

To repeat (again) the object of aviation regulation is safety. Clear enough? Yes, the error is yours.

A 200hr CPL in a charter show works within a framework of regulation and standards, so that the operation is as safe as can be reasonably acheived. There are CASA approved checks and balances designed to optimise safety for the travelling public. The same does not apply to this quasi-private/ commercial show where you may be putting unsuspecting passengers with pilots and aircraft that do not meet the same standards or have the same checks and balances as a charter operation. Do the passengers know this?

As previously explained, airline transport is the safest option. In GA, EMS is the safest, followed by charter, with private ops well behind.

Again as previously explained, where I come from HACC and other volunteers are accredited.

And yet again as previously explained, in Qld the Government DOES pay for these patients who do not qualify for RFDS, to be transported by airline (the PTS scheme).

Perhaps the passion and enthusiam of those supporting AF could be redirected into pushing their government into appropriately funding the health system to do the same.

outnabout, you are correct. Should have read single engine NVFR charter flights are not allowed.

When I said Angel Flight were a quasi-commercial opertion, what I meant was they are essentially offering free charters. A businessman flying himself is quite clearly a private operation and totally different to the AF situation!

HH

I don't think you could be more wrong. A private flight with a supplier / customer or employee along as a passenger is far closer to a commercial operation than AF. And the pax potentially are less well informed. Angel Flight is pretty much a match making service. The passengers are given briefings beforehand by Angel Flight and they get some details on the pilot and aircraft beforehand, so they have some degree of an informed decision. The pilot who grabs an employee and says "c'mon mate we'll just fly here" has much less power in the equation.

But, you've also got to remember that the same goes for driving someone in a car. We don't get hung up about needing operation manuals to run someone down the road in a vehicle with unregulated servicing and a driver who has had no licence review since he / she was a spotty 18 year old.

How many different levels of safety regulation do we need? Why should this discussion be any different than if the pilots wife and daughter were on board?

This thread has largely devolved into a NVMC bashing discussion. Without getting into the merits of that debate, lets remember that there is no indication that this was a NVMC accident. It may be VFR to IMC, it may be pilot incapacitation, or it might have been an attack by aliens. One of our questions should be why it takes the ATSB a year to figure out which of these it is. I want to understand this and look for lessons way before then.

Rossy
I have no argument with that, I actually didn't mention single engine ops, just single pilot ifr in response to someones suggestion that it could also be banned.

Jas24
heh heh good call , you're probably right, I look in the law books all the time but not the NVFR section. That said, it makes no difference to my argument at all.
My position is that the NVFR rating doesn't prepare the pilot for the conditions they will encounter. Simple. Do you think it does?
It should be scrapped or the 'time under the hood' required should be increased to achieve the same competancy levels that are achieved with an IFR rating. Don't worry about the nav so much (after all it is VFR) but equip the pilot with the skills to be able to deal with all the nasty illusions that come with flying in IMC ....because the reality is....sometimes they'l need that skill.
Thats all I'm saying.
Framer

Hey framer, wasn't having a crack at you, just wasn't sure you knew. And it should have said Charter, not commercial flight.

Cheers!

How do you arrive at that conclusion? AF schedules aircraft with flight crew, your local fly in vet does not!
You can give all the briefings you like, people will still not understand the subtle difference! Clearly people on here don't and they are from within the industry.

From where I sit there seems to be a large discrepancy in the type of equipment, pilot qualifications and operating procedures. Why set the bar so low? I don't think raising the minimums would have any effect on their ability to deliver the service.

Why not strive for a higher level of service delivery rather than accept the minimum? Just because it is a private operation why not operate to a higher standard? Where I work all our flights are technically 'air work', but maintenance, aircraft equipment and training are operated to an RPT equivilent standard.

HH

Does the "low bar" that you complain about apply to the ABC chopper? Or the 206 at Lake Eyre. Or the 210 at Kunnunurra? At the moment there is no evidence that the Cherokee 180 that crashed near Nhill was any less well maintained, or the pilot any less diligent. Indeed, while its unlikely, the aeroplane might even be in the charter category for all we know. Instead, there is just a lot of finger pointing because the pilot was a private pilot and not possessing the elevated status of CPL or ATPL.

And why should a small not-for-profit be setting itself up as knowing better than CASA? Why do you think my family's life is worth less than someone I meet through Angel Flight? If you think the PPL standards are too low, then lets argue that case. If you think Airwork maintenance standards are too low, then lets argue that case. And if there is a good argument for either, then let's take it to CASA.

I presume you have never sen the information pack that goers to Angel Flight passengers? Or have awareness of the screening system to confirm that the passengers are fit to fly? Or potentially even the emails and flight briefing sheets that go to passengers, pilots & ground crew? Have you experienced how Angel Flight deals with a Pilot cancelling a trip (which is excellent by the way)?

I stand by my argument that an angel Flight passenger is in a better position to make a judgement about whether or not to fly with me that one of my clients or employees who decides to fly with me on a business trip. If for no other reason than the balance of power is more even. Angel Flight is an introduction service, not a scheduled service, not a charter. I cancelled an Angel Flight today because I'm getting the flu. If it was a private / business flight I might still do it, I'm not yet unfit to fly. But there is a whole different imperative. A friend flew to a regional town to pick up a passenger, got there but didn't like the weather he flew through and so cancelled the Angel Flight with about 30 min notice. That flexibility doesn't exist with charter and rightly or wrongly is less likely to exist on private / business flights.

Akro, I think you have some valid points, as do HH and Al and some other posters who have remained objective. Therein lay the crux of the issue being debated - objectivity.

While you and someone like HH who works in this role all day can make a smart and objective go/ no-go decision , does the same apply to all the AF pilots across the the wide range of experience and training that their website demonstrates? The rate of fatal crashes in PVT ops vs CHTR and RPT seems to indicate not.

Once the emotion is taken out an objective review may find that perhaps tighter operational management, regulatory oversight and higher minimum standards would make for a safer operation. Perhaps not.

Jamair

I can't disagree with you. My only point would be that I think I'd go with the judgement of a 66 YO 800 hour PPL who owns an aeroplane before most of the mass produced 21YO training factory CPL's who are the main fodder for charter ops.

Furthermore, I reckon my light twin is better equipped and better maintained than any of the (charter ops) twins I used to hire.

HH has a valid point of view, I just think he's overlooking the huge overlap between private & commercial ops. I'll concede that the best commercial ops are probably better than the best private ops. But I'm not sure that the worst commercial ops are any better than the worst private ops.

My opinion is that it will vary from pilot to pilot but on the whole, there will be more ppl's that get out of their depth when it comes to these decisions. Experience is the difference.
Some of the ppl's may have had decades of experience making tough decisions where the consequences were tangible and serious. In adition, they may have spent a lot of their spare time reading aviation incident reports which adds to their understanding of how certain things play out. Alternatively, they may have very little experience in decision making followed by 'wearing the consequences,' and never read anything aviation related after their licence obligations were fulfilled. It really is a mixed bag.The worst offenders in my opinion being the chaps who buy an aircraft because it satisfies their ego, not because they are passionate about aviation.
With the commercial pilots, they generally have constant exposure to the environment. They're immersed in it in most cases. They can spend 40-60 hours a week living breathing reading socialising flying. I think that plays in their favour. It's sort of like an 'industry currency'.
I know I'l get responses detailing how incredibly dedicated and knowledgable some ppls are. I know that, especially if they are on this site. I'm not disputing that, just saying that the consistancy in decision making skills is not as great in that group, simply because it doesn't have to be and we're human, which brings me back to the NVFR rating, all that does is make the decision harder for them.Make it easy, if it's gunna get dark, stay on the ground or get an ifr rating.

Oh dear, where do people come up with this.

Have you read the Angel Flight pilot profiles? There are a lot of ex CPL's etc on there that are now just lowly PPL's as people are describing. A PPL doesn't mean you have a tendency to easily go out of your depth and make poor decisions. I know many a PPL that I'd rather fly with than a snotty nosed 200 hour pilot that doesn't know ****.

Would a 20 year old 200 hour CPL have better judgement than a 700 hour 50 year old?