|
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!! |
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. |
Originally Posted by Lead Balloon
(Post 10384691)
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.! |
Originally Posted by LeadSled
(Post 10384724)
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!! |
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.... |
. 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. |
Emails sent, thanks for the letter and links
|
I'd have thought Bob Katter would be the most obvious one to put a disallow motion |
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. |
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 ?? |
Originally Posted by aroa
(Post 10387532)
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 ?? (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. |
Originally Posted by Lead Balloon
(Post 10384784)
Gosh. So the FAA now takes the view that the transportation of the owner of an aircraft is an activity for which the pilot has to have a CPL? If so, it seems that the FAA may have caught CASA disease! 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? |
Originally Posted by Global Aviator
(Post 10388639)
Could even be a passive approach handing out information flyers near the CASA booth.
|
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! |
global aviator understands that what Angel Flight has is not a technical or legal problem but a political problem. That requires political solutions. Trying anything else except perhaps a high court challenge is a waste of time. |
Looks like this is the instrument. Some changes to the initial proposal. Instrument number CASA 09/19 I, SHANE PATRICK CARMODY, Director of Aviation Safety, on behalf of CASA, make this instrument under regulation 11.068 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998. [Signed S. Carmody] Shane Carmody Director of Aviation Safety 12 February 2019 CASA 09/19 — Civil Aviation (Community Service Flights — Conditions on Flight Crew Licences) Instrument 2019 Contents Page 1 Name 2 Duration 3 Definitions 4 Application 5 Conditions on flight crew licences for community service flights 6 Community service flights 7 General requirements 8 Excluded aeroplanes 9 Aeronautical experience requirements 10 Operational and notification requirements 11 Aeroplane maintenance requirements 1 Name This instrument is CASA 09/19 — Civil Aviation (Community Service Flights — Conditions on Flight Crew Licences) Instrument 2019. 2 Duration This instrument: (a) commences on 19 March 2019; and (b) is repealed at the end of 18 March 2022. 3 Definitions Note A number of expressions used in this instrument are defined in CASR or CAR, including the following: (a) AIP; (b) amateur-built aircraft; (c) Amateur Built Aircraft Acceptance, or ABAA; (d) approved system of maintenance; (e) CASA maintenance schedule; (f) certificate of airworthiness; (g) class B aircraft; (h) experimental certificate; (i) flight time; (j) I.F.R.; (k) limited category aircraft; (l) maintenance schedule; (m) operating crew; (n) pilot (used as a verb); (o) registered; (p) type (for an aircraft); (q) V.F.R. In this instrument: community service flight: see section 6. periodic inspection has the meaning given by paragraph 2.1 of Part 2 of Schedule 5 to CAR (containing the CASA maintenance schedule). 4 Application This instrument applies in relation to a flight in an aircraft conducted as a private operation. 5 Conditions on flight crew licences for community service flights For the purposes of regulation 11.068 of CASR, this instrument imposes conditions on flight crew licences. Note See Part 1 of the Dictionary to CASR for the definition of flight crew licence. 6 Community service flights (1) A flight is a community service flight if it meets the description in subsections (2) to (5). (2) The flight involves: (a) the transport of one or more individuals (a patient) to a destination for the purpose of each such individual receiving non-emergency medical treatment or services at the destination; or (b) the transport of a patient from a destination mentioned in paragraph (a) (the treatment destination) to another treatment destination; or (c) the transport of a patient from a treatment destination: (i) back to a place from which the patient departed for a treatment destination; or (ii) to a destination at which the patient resides. (3) The flight is provided to a patient, and any person who accompanies the patient to provide support and assistance, without a charge being made to any of those persons for their carriage. (4) Medical treatment is not provided on board the aircraft for the flight, other than the administering of medication or in response to an unexpected medical emergency. (5) The flight is coordinated, arranged or facilitated by an entity for a charitable purpose or community service purpose. Note Section 2B of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 defines charitable purpose as having the meaning given by Part 3 of the Charities Act 2013. 7 General requirements (1) It is a condition on a flight crew licence that its holder must not operate an aircraft for a community service flight unless: (a) the licence is a private pilot licence, commercial pilot licence or air transport pilot licence; and (b) the flight is conducted in an aeroplane; and (c) the aeroplane does not carry on board any persons other than: (i) a patient mentioned in paragraph 6 (2) (a), and any other passenger who accompanies a patient to provide support and assistance; and (ii) the operating crew; and (d) the holder holds a current class 1 or 2 medical certificate. Note Subpart 67.C of CASR provides for the requirements relating to medical certificates. (2) To avoid doubt, the provisions of CASA EX65/18 — Private Pilot Licence Medical Certification (Basic Class 2 Medical Certificate) Exemption 2018 do not apply to the holder of a flight crew licence who operates an aeroplane for a community service flight. Note An Aviation Medical Certificate (Basic Class 2) issued by CASA under CASA EX65/18 — Private Pilot Licence Medical Certification (Basic Class 2 Medical Certificate) Exemption 2018 is not a class 1 or class 2 medical certificate. 8 Excluded aeroplanes (1) It is a condition on a flight crew licence that its holder must not pilot an aeroplane operated for a community service flight if the aeroplane is excluded under subsection (2). (2) For subsection (1), an aeroplane is excluded if: (a) the aeroplane is: (i) an amateur-built aircraft accepted under an Amateur Built Aircraft Acceptance; or (ii) an aircraft in the limited category; or (b) there is an experimental certificate in force for the aeroplane; or (c) the aeroplane is not registered. 9 Aeronautical experience requirements General requirements (1) It is a condition on a flight crew licence that its holder must not pilot an aeroplane operated for a community service flight unless the holder has aeronautical experience that includes: (a) a landing, within the previous 30 days, in: (i) if the community service flight is conducted in an aeroplane that is class rated — an aeroplane of that class; or (ii) if the community service flight is conducted in an aeroplane that is type rated — that type of aeroplane; and (b) for a flight that is conducted under the V.F.R. — at least 10 hours of flight time in an aeroplane of the same type as the aeroplane used for the community service flight; and (c) for a flight that is conducted under the I.F.R. — at least 20 hours of flight time in an aeroplane of the same type as the aeroplane used for the community service flight; and (d) for a flight that is conducted in a multi-engine aeroplane — at least 25 hours of flight time as pilot in command of a multi-engine aeroplane. Note See Part 1 of the Dictionary to CASR for the definition of type. Additional requirements for private pilots (2) Subsection (3) applies if the holder of a private pilot licence does not also hold a commercial pilot licence or an air transport pilot licence. (3) It is a condition on the private pilot licence that its holder must not pilot an aeroplane operated for a community service flight unless the holder has aeronautical experience that includes: (a) at least 400 hours of flight time conducted in an aeroplane or a helicopter; and (b) at least 250 hours of flight time as pilot in command of an aeroplane or a helicopter. Note 1 The term pilot, used as a verb, has the meaning given by regulation 61.010 of CASR. Note 2 For the meaning of flight time as a pilot in command: see regulation 61.090 of CASR. 10 Operational and notification requirements It is a condition on a flight crew licence that its holder must not pilot an aeroplane operated for a community service flight unless: (a) the aeroplane carries no more than 5 passengers (including any patient mentioned in paragraph 6 (2) (a)); and (b) the aeroplane is not operated under the V.F.R. at night; and (c) the holder submits a flight notification (within the meaning given by the AIP) to Airservices Australia that: (i) identifies the flight as a community service flight using the acronym “CSF”; and (ii) is either “full flight details” or “SARTIME”; and (d) the holder, in addition to the requirements in regulation 61.350 of CASR to record information about flights in a personal logbook, records that the flight is a community service flight in the logbook. Note For paragraph (c), the flight can be identified by entering the acronym in the “remarks” section of the flight notification: see AIP ENR 1.10. 11 Aeroplane maintenance requirements (1) Subsection (2) applies if there is an election in force under regulation 42B of CAR for an aeroplane to use the CASA maintenance schedule for the aircraft’s maintenance. (2) It is a condition on a flight crew licence that its holder must not pilot the aeroplane for a community service flight unless: (a) the aeroplane has undergone a periodic inspection: (i) within the last 100 hours of service of the aeroplane; or (ii) if the aeroplane has been in service for less than 100 hours in the immediately preceding 12 months — within the 12 months; or (b) both of the following apply: (i) the aeroplane was issued its current certificate of airworthiness less than 12 months before the flight; (ii) the aeroplane has been in service for less than 100 hours since the certificate was issued. |
10 hours for PPL VFR , 30 hours for PPL IFR, in the previous 30 days.
Excessive in my opinion - I imagine that will cut out many of the volunteer pilots. . I was a hobby pilot, PPL, IFR, and flew quite a few flights for AF. I never met those requirements.. EDIT later - I agree on closer reading with a later post that the only 30 day requirement is one landing - that's much more sensible. I have no issue with that. |
I think the only 30 day requirement is one landing. The hour requirements are total time on type. It appears you can still use an on condition engine. |
At first reading, I have to say it looks reasonable. Panic over. |
Originally Posted by Clearedtoreenter
(Post 10390360)
Apart from the extaxcommissioner’s pen now being far mightier than anyone’s sword, fears of what it could do next in GA, and the rather puzzling ban on helicopters, maybe it is. (Source: Wiki.) |
Originally Posted by gerry111
(Post 10390486)
Shane Carmody has never been Commissioner of Taxation in Australia. Perhaps you are confusing him with Michael Carmody who was, between 1993 and 2005?
(Source: Wiki.) Correction Shane Carmody career highlights 2016 - Deputy Secretary, Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development 2014 – 2016 Chief Operating Officer Department of Veterans’ Affairs 2009-2014 – Deputy President Repatriation Commission 2006-2009 – Deputy CEO Strategy and Support Civil Aviation Safety Authority 2001-2006 – Deputy Secretary Department of Defence |
Shane Carmody career highlights 2016 - Deputy Secretary, Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development 2014 – 2016 Chief Operating Officer Department of Veterans’ Affairs 2009-2014 – Deputy President Repatriation Commission 2006-2009 – Deputy CEO Strategy and Support Civil Aviation Safety Authority 2001-2006 – Deputy Secretary Department of Defence |
"All of which indicates, to me anyway, that what he actually knows of Aviation in Australia could be engraved in block letters on the head of a pin and still leave room for the Lord's Prayer!:rolleyes:"
Yup, another career Mandarin. Just another self servant feeding on the public teat. Rumour has it he has very flexible working hours. Maybe he is too busy adding up his super entitlements and working on investment strategies for his obscene salary. and all the while the industry spirals down the gurgler. Do you really think he gives a toss? He and his Cohorts have no shame. |
Sunfish - I am with you - still need anti "getthereitis" lessons though !!
|
the pop song music 'breaking up is not so hard to do' could go for those with gettheritis ..'turning back is not so hard to do.' either.
When the options/wx ahead doesnt look.so good..you'll be pleased you did.! Better to be down here having a cold beer, than up there in a cold sweat ! |
Better to be down here having a cold beer, than up there in a cold sweat ! AHAAAA..... An 'oldie' ...but a VERY goodie...… Cheers |
This is circular nonsense: 7 General requirements (1) It is a condition on a flight crew licence that its holder must not operate an aircraft for a community service flight unless: (a) the licence is a private pilot licence, commercial pilot licence or air transport pilot licence; and What they meant to say is: (1) It is a condition on a private pilot licence, commercial pilot licence or air transport licence that the holder must not operate an aircraft community service flight unless: (a) the flight is in an aeroplane; (b) etc (2) It is a condition of a flight crew licence other than a licence mentioned in (1) that the holder must not operate an aircraft for a community service flight unless the holder also holds one of the licences mentioned in (1). Do e.g. RAAus pilots have a “flight crew licence” within the meaning of CASR 11.068? I didn’t think a Recreational Pilot’s Certificate is a “flight crew licence” within the meaning of CASR 11.068. If it isn’t, I don’t think CASA can effectively ‘ban’ CSFs by holders of RPCs by imposing conditions under CASR 11.068 on licences that aren’t RPCs. Is an RPC a “flight crew licence” within the meaning of CASR 11.068? Does RAAus itself effectively ban CSFs already? |
Originally Posted by Sunfish
(Post 10389753)
At first reading, I have to say it looks reasonable. Panic over. On the contrary, it is not reasonable because none of it is even remotely justified. You should recognise the tactics --- propose to cut off both somebody's leg, then consult, then agree to cut off only one leg, and low and behold, the cutter is praised by the cuttee for agreeing to less draconian action, because they are only going to lose one leg. Cutting off one leg is still without justification. Tootle pip!! PS: I an really mystified by the helicopter ban ?? Who in CASA has it in for private helicopters?? Undoubtedly somebody(s) who believe helicopters should not be flown by PPLs, or some similar irrational idea. Remember, a while back, when it was proposed that only military trained helo pilots could be check pilots /instructors in said flingwings. |
"Remember, a while back, when it was proposed that only military trained helo pilots could be check pilots /instructors in said flingwings."
Leady, That would fit in nicely with a senior CAsA mandarin's statement that if he had his way the only things flying in Australia would be the RAAF and RPT. Of course RPT could only be piloted by RAAF Pilots. Looking increasingly like he's getting his way. I can't help wondering how CAsA proposes to police this new regulation that's not really a regulation. Out at kickatinalong Molly Maggot rings Billy Blowfly who owns an aircraft and asks him if he could fly her and her daughter to the big smoke as she needs to buy new school uniforms unavailable in Kickatinalong. Would this be a community service flight? While in the big smoke Molly takes her daughter to a clinic for treatment. Has Billy now inadvertently committed an offence? During the phone call Molly tells Billy she will be taking her daughter to the doctor in the big smoke and Billy tells her aww Gee Molly can't take you in the aircraft its against the law if you visit a doctor, but I'll drive you the 15 hours no worries. Billy inadvertently falls asleep at the wheel on the way and gets wiped out by a road train killing them all. Would these fatalities be added to CAsA's statistics? Okay silly question. 34,000 Angel Flight missions a year in the USA. 12,500 Angel Flight missions a year in Canada. The previous DAS who WAS a pilot with some aeronautical experience looked at regulating Angel Flight and declined to act. Carmody with no aviation experience at all decides it will rain aluminium if he doesn't act against absolutely no evidence of a problem that needed fixing, blackens the name of private pilots and the GA industry by inferring we are a bunch of homicidal lunatics out to slaughter anyone we come in contact with, creating in the publics eye GA is on a Par with ISIS. |
Very Limited Consultation?
Originally Posted by Cloudee
(Post 10389501)
7 General requirements (1) It is a condition on a flight crew licence that its holder must not operate an aircraft for a community service flight unless: (a) the licence is a private pilot licence, commercial pilot licence or air transport pilot licence; and (b) the flight is conducted in an aeroplane; and (c) the aeroplane does not carry on board any persons other than: (i) a patient mentioned in paragraph 6 (2) (a), and any other passenger who accompanies a patient to provide support and assistance i often take a mate, wife or family member, Earth Angel, Angel Flight staff or someone else along for the ride on an Angel Flight. This is now prohibited. I understand that Angel Flight have agreements in place with some airlines to carry Angel Flight clients and carers due to cancellations, etc. Does one of these flights constitute a CFS? Under the Instrument, no other passengers are to be carried. Yet, further down in this goobledygook a CFS is limited to 5 passengers. Obviously all clients or carers. i can not see how this improves safety! |
I’ve looked at the Dictionary in CASR and it says: flight crew licence: (a) means a flight crew licence within the meaning of Part 61; and (b) includes a certificate of validation of an overseas flight crew licence. Is an RAAus RPC a flight crew licence within the meaning of Part 61? Part 61 says: flight crew licence means: (a) a pilot licence; or (b) a flight engineer licence; or (c) a glider pilot licence. and: pilot licence means any of the following licences: (a) an air transport pilot licence; (b) a commercial pilot licence; (c) a multi‑crew pilot licence; (d) a private pilot licence; (e) a recreational pilot licence. If an RAAus RPC is not one of those, I don’t see how the instrument imposes any conditions on RPCs. |
Clearly, an RPC is not a flight crew licence.
|
It would follow, then, that an instrument that “imposes conditions on flight crew licences” does not impose anything on RPCs. |
I said very early on in this discussion that no NVFR will be a problem in winter getting volunteers to take on a flight/mission (call it what you want). The very reason being who can either afford the time off work or cost of overnighting somewhere all because you can't complete that last hour getting home? Most treatments by the time the patient signs in and gets set up will mean they don't get back to the city airport until around 5 pm. Most country flights will be 1 to 2 hours duration is my guess going on past experiance, meaning you are not going to get home before last light. Just what is the issue with NVFR anyway? Engine failure, loss of horizon,etc? I have been flying NVFR for 30 odd years and as long as you abide by the rules with enhanced VMC minima and lowest safe it is not an issue. If CASA wanted to be seen doing something about this scary ( to them ) night flying then make the minimum hours required say 50 or 100 at night before you could undertake it as a CSF.
My guess now will be one of two things will happen. Pilots will walk away from all day trips or do the inbound trip as a CSF and the outbound as a private NVFR flight on a sartime or flight note. CASA in my view in their stupidity are encouraging normal law abiding pilots with charitable hearts to flout the rules. Again so unnecessary. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 04:04. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.