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.