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

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.

“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.

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?

Does Angel flight have a stand? Run a petition? have handouts?

I suggest positive training to negate “getthereitis” affecting some pilot’s egos might not go astray and solve most of the perceived problem.

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.

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.

You regard an ABC report as factual? Then you build your opinion around it and expected be taken seriously? What planet are you on?

You have fallen for CASAs sleight of hand where they now claim the power to categorise types ​​​​​​ of private flights according to the passengers and circumstances of the flight. That is effectively an end to private flight in its entirety!

To put that another way, it ain’t private if CASA can dictate who you can carry and where you can go. Have you got that through your head?

Continue on guys, I expect a few personal attacks. It's an Australian pilots thingy, most hate it when an another opinion is viewed!

I’m with machtuk.

Mandating calendar-based engine overhauls will cure ‘get-home-itis’ and continuing VFR into IMC. That, and shortening the period in which the minimum number of landings and take offs in type have to be completed, should just about get to zero accidents and incidents. The next step should surely be minimum CPL and AOC coverage, to guarantee zero fatalities.

Now yer talkin!

And mandating control cable replacement will stop VFR pilots continuing into IMC.

Finally: It all makes sense to me.

“gethereitis is not just a medical flight issue.

lets be clear. The first accident near Horsham was not VFR to IMC. It occurred before last light but the ATSB assumes that due to low cloud and other factors that the pilot becaume disoriented in night VMC. The ATSB said “VFR flight into dark night conditions”. Which in itself is an emotive headline befitting of a Mills & Boon paperback.

There are 2 glaring weaknesses in the ATSB Horsham report. 1. The report does not disclose who the pilot rang when he landed at Bendigo. He made 3 phone calls, one of which was to met briefing. A phone all that would have been recorded. But the ATSB failed to disclose what weather advice the pilot recieved before deciding to reload his passengers into the aeroplane and continue. The second is that one of the passengers - known to be highly agitated - was found not wearing a seat belt and out of her seat. This raises the spectre of an agitated passenger interfering with the control. But this was not considered at all by the ATSB.

The second Mt Gambier incident does not yet have a final report - about 18 months after the accident. Prima facie it looks like the pilot flew into a fog layer and became disoriented. But, the pilot landed in similar (presumably worse) fog 2 hours prior. So - legal or not - he had familiarity with what he was getting into and how high it was likely to extend, which appears to be only a couple of hundred feet thick. There is a strong chance he was able to see blue sky vertically above him and ground directly below him. The aircraft probably only needed to maintain a climb for about 30 seconds to climb through the fog layer, but it did not. We don’t yet know if the aircraft had an autopilot. But a simple wing leveler and an aeroplane producing full power and any semblance of airspeed control would have seen the aircraft climb through the fog. I’m not condoning the pilot taking off into fog and I have personally cancelled and Angel Flight about 3 hours before ETD because of fog. But blaming this accident on VFR to IMC without a report from the ATSB (no matter how poor it will be) is facile.

I have it: CASA should charge a fee to approve each community service flight!

Not sure where you get the idea that it will “lapse”, Leaddie.

If it’s a legislative instrument it has to be laid before (‘tabled’ in) each House within 6 days of the instrument being made. Each House then has 15 sitting days in which to move a motion to disallow. According to Odger’s: “Where a session of the Parliament ends because the House of Representatives is dissolved or expires, or the Parliament is prorogued, and a notice of motion to disallow has not been withdrawn or otherwise disposed of, the instrument in question is deemed to have been laid before the relevant House on the first sitting day of the new session. The opportunity to move disallowance is then renewed.”

Note that the instrument is in force for the entire period, which can be months. And note that if a motion to disallow is not moved in either House, the instrument continues in force even if there’s a change in government.

Making subordinate law - e.g. a legislative instrument - in the lead up to an election can therefore be a very ‘clever’ (translation: ‘sneaky arsehole’) bureaucratic tactic to make a controversial law while the pollies are focussed on re-election and the 15 sitting days can span months. By the time the post-election dust settles, the law has done months of damage and the new government is usually focussed on the ‘big picture’ (consolidating itself by, if necessary, making deals with cross-benchers) rather than trivia like subordinate legislation that’s been in force for months and done damage that won’t make any political difference, given that the next election is a couple of years away.

This is, after all, the lucky country.