Jump to content

Recommended Posts

The way WE operate In RAAus the TIF makes perfect sense. I recall you could do 3 hours before getting a student pilot licence in GA. This can all be logged ( although I didn't log mine at Albion Park).

 

The joy flights I did as a Commercial Pilot FOR an Aero Club is another matter. It was just to make money and no attempt was made to instruct the Three Persons on board. Except to operate the doors and seatbelts and anything else of that nature (Sick bags if they look as though they might need them ).

 

There seems to always be those who want to test the boundaries. When the $h1t hits the fan we ALL suffer from more stringent regulation, or reduction of privileges. Trouble is you can lose your house.

 

When you put everything you own in your wife's name, do you realise how ATTRACTIVE she may then appear to be ? Nev

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 79
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Qualified instructor in the right hand seat? Doesn't matter what you call it. I started my flying with a TIF at a fly in in my local area. A number of other people had TIFs on the same day but only I signed up for training. I guess the rest of them were joy flights?

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

See #22, it's unequivocal and there are sound safety reasons for it.

 

There's no confusion in GA - Commercial activites are conducted by Commercial pilots employed by accredited facilities.

 

There's nothing illogical in that either,; if someone is buying their grandmother they have the right to believe that sound commercial operational and safety standards apply, and they have recourse if they don't.

 

I'm not saying there are not criminals in GA who conduct illegal operations, but that's another subject relating to compliance and enforcement.

 

Recreational aviators in the various associations are a fringe group which were allowed to operate at a lower level of safety, given some mitigating specification and rule restrictions which tended to bring the safety level up again, but there's no way that there was any intention to sneak commercial operations into this mix.

 

The experience with some deaths and some forum admissions using deliberately euphemistic language is not going is creating a scenario, combined with recent activities by CASA, the Senate and the Minister's office to wonder whether this separate operation by exception was such a good thing after all.

 

I couldn't see any commercial activity in RA being approved any time soon, or any relaxation in a number of areas with the present safety performance.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Another black mark for our over-regulated sport. Lets hope the CASA review ends up with some more common sense.

 

Any passenger rated RA-Aus pilot can take someone for a joy flight just not for profit.

 

A school can take someone for a TIF & the intention of the passenger can be to find out about flying or just to have a look at stuff on the ground so it can also be a joy flight & the school gets paid for it.

 

The only thing that can't be done is the flights being advertised as joy flights.

 

So the regulation is stupid. Why not change things so that schools can provide joyflights providing the pilot is a senior instructor or CFI? To me this is logical and legalises what happens anyway.

 

 

  • Agree 2
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
ORremove the licence/qualification from those who breach the law just because they don't agree with it.

Problem is, it's a grey area. How are you going to prove that the intention was a joy flight, in most cases it would be one persons word against another.

Solution = change the rule so that people are not made criminals of for doing what they do every day under a different name quite legally.

 

If you have a mortgage payment due it would be hard to turn down a paid job on the basis of what's been described above, in my worthless opinion.

 

Regards Bill

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

How are you going to prove that the intention was a joy flight, in most cases it would be one persons word against another.

 

Simple - "investigation"

 

i.e.

 

Observations

 

Course of conduct

 

Advertising

 

Take Statements

 

Then interview

 

the way any successful brief of evidence is put together.

 

 

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Problem is, it's a grey area. How are you going to prove that the intention was a joy flight, in most cases it would be one persons word against another.Solution = change the rule so that people are not made criminals of for doing what they do every day under a different name quite legally.

If you have a mortgage payment due it would be hard to turn down a paid job on the basis of what's been described above, in my worthless opinion.

 

Regards Bill

Courts just aren't that dumb and nor is CASA - for a start the researchers check out Recreational Flying for the case, so they have your thoughts. They check your history, so they know what locals are saying about your attitude, and, you might not believe this but part of their work is to employ private investigators if necessary, to track you see who's been riding with you, and interview them until there are enough suitable witnesses who will tell a Court what their understanding is of the flight status, how they found out about your, what they paid, what they understood it was for, and the conversation a recording of which (if one of the "customers: was a private investigator) might be "We call it a TIF because then we can take you up, it's what we do every day under a different name legally, and just another black mark for our over-regulated sport."

 

How many times does it need to be rammed into you that it is not acceptable these days to kill people through sub standard aircraft, sub standard facilities and sub standard skill levels - take a look at the hard statistics.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
How many times does it need to be rammed into you that it is not acceptable these days to kill people through sub standard aircraft, sub standard facilities and sub standard skill levels - take a look at the hard statistics.

Turbo, those are pretty strong words you use from behind your key board. I don't care much how thick you think I am. I know you are the expert who has time to go and track down all these statistics you mention, although you never quote your sources (we're supposed to go and find them for ourselves right)

So you are saying that flying schools are training people every day from their sub standard facilities in their substandard aircraft using their substandard skills? If so I think that is a joke. Surely people flying with qualified instructors in professionally maintained aircraft are safer than someone stupid enough to come flying with me for free with my 250 hrs inexperience in my aircraft maintained by me to my own self preservation standards. I'm sure your statistics would reflect that.

 

If what you guys say is correct and it is so easy to catch and prosecute successfully instructors for doing what they are doing ( even I've seen it and I don't get off the farm much) ,why isn't it happening?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the concessions we have are an offset against use of CTA and earning money. I personally think that taking people up even if they are your friend(s) can have bad outcomes. You hear of them occasionally. Your friend's widow may not be so forgiving of your errors once she has spoken to a lawyer.

 

The placard that is compulsory gives an indication of the reduced "standard" that we are permitted to operate to. Read "CONCESSIONS". again. An Informed passenger means they undertake the activity knowing that it is not a regular aircraft

 

Flying Instruction is the only [permitted money earning activity, and it should be insured to protect all those participating in it. The instructor's only have to meet level two PPL medical. It's a balance and you have to see it in that light or go full commercial GA. You can't have it both ways. Nev

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Do we have any official feedback from ATSB / CASA re the recent Kinglake VIC gyrocopter double fatal - pilot and passenger - scenic flight or TIF.Any resulting rule changes.

Chocks ,

 

ATSB is the regulator charged with the responsibility of accident investigation, however do not normally get involved with Sport or Recreational aircraft fatalities unless there are wider safety issues . Like RAAus with fixed wing aircraft , gyro copters are the responsibility of the Sports Rotorcraft Association (ASRA) . Both RAAus and ASRA are delegated by ATSB to carry out their own investigations , or more correctly ,to assist the State or Territory police in the investigation ,whose responsibility is to submit a report to the Coroner . An inquest , opposed to a "Record of Investigation into Death ( Without Inquest ) ", if considered necessary may take years , until then , comments about any particular accident are purely speculation .

 

Bob

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quolte=facthunter, post: 418588, member: 134] You can't have it both ways. Nev

 

Yes you can by changing the regulations to allow RA instructors (senior & above) to take passengers for joy flights. Get the passenger to sign a waiver, ensure the aircraft & school are are properly insured. Where's the problem?

 

 

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I am amused by the way some posters here have a risk aversion/fear of CASA or of being sued, that is, I reckon, totally paranoid.

 

Personally, I would happily do without the constant carping that any of us might be sued (gosh, gee) or be attacked by CASA.

 

I don't need any of the offenders on this forum to do my worrying for me.

 

Fighting CASA or RAAus, or engaging in antics at a court of law are occupational hazards. This is something best accepted at the outset. The poo can descend on any of us. Meanwhile, best get on with it ....with a fearless heart.

 

Oh, by the way........

 

Each punter embarking on a TIF is a member of RAAus. Yes, I said "is a member".

 

Does that jolt anyones position?

 

 

  • Winner 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

What I wonder is why somebody would ever be inclined to sign off on this from within CASA. The whole of GA would rightfully oppose it. When something went wrong how would a risk averse CASA explain the lowering of medical standards for instance. By wanting this you are exposing the movement as a whole to calls for further limits equals reduced privileges. Why would someone operate a full GA school IF you could do much the same with what we have as a concession? Nev

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

If a TIF is given and it is really a joy flight. What is the increased risk of death? That seems to be what the question is here and so far as I can see a TIF would be more dangerous, because the passenger will be allowed to take the controls. Really it is all a storm in a teacup.

 

 

  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

CASA is not asking you to debate it or classify it. What would be the purpose of spending the thousands of dollars getting a Commercial Pilot's Licence and the hundreds of thousands, if not millions setting up and managing facilities and equipment adequate for the paying public, if they also said "or if you don't like those restraints just go ahead and fudge it."

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

A Joy flight is not a Joy if your told "your plane get your hands on the control" Its a big thing the first time, and if your instructor is good ( I'de underline that). your second TIFF would be a JOYFLIGHT.

 

Raa CAN do joyflights !, if I'm reading this thread properly. They just cant charge for it, is that correct?

 

And I've never been offered a FREE flight EVER

 

spacesailor

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
A Joy flight is not a Joy if your told "your plane get your hands on the control" Its a big thing the first time, and if your instructor is good ( I'de underline that). your second TIFF would be a JOYFLIGHT.Raa CAN do joyflights !, if I'm reading this thread properly. They just cant charge for it, is that correct?

 

And I've never been offered a FREE flight EVER

 

spacesailor

You can take anyone up for a flight in an RA aircraft with a Pilot Certificate and passenger endorsement, (provided they meet the rules i.e. not so heavy the aircraft exceeds the weight limit.)

 

You can share the cost up to a limit (50%) and within certain criteria (ie not a business flight etc). There have been threads on here and pprune defining those limits to a fine degree as well as the CASA site.

 

You could even describe that as a Joy Flight, but most people wouldn't feel the need to bother.

 

Playing with the word Joyflight has confused a few people.

 

What you are not allowed to do in RA, is conduct commercial operations.

 

So you can't put an ad or sign up for "Joyflights - $75.00" etc, and you can't charge a passenger for the flight, which for example might be a sightseeing flight, or maybe a businessman offering money for a flight to a nearby two, or any one of the many examples, which get quite complicated, on the previous thread. CASA and its predecessors has had thousands of propositions over the last 70 or 80 years from hopefuls trying to earn income without qualifications and are well ahead of the game.

 

Frequently the prosecutions come from an innocent passenger talking about the Joyflight he bought his aunt when there is an FoI around, or when the passenger posts his Youtube experience which seems to be scoured by CASA employees hourly - so you don't need an accident to be in the deep stuff.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Playing with the word Joyflight has confused a few people.

 

After reading some of the comments, I really doubt that is correct. I get the impression that it is not lack of understanding of "hire or reward" but just trying to justify what they already know is not permitted. The only commercial operations permitted is the training for the issue of a pilot's certificate etc.

 

Anyone instructing would/should know better - It is more a case of if I don't like a particular rule then I'll ignore it.

 

Pretty sad really .

 

 

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

All I am saying is that if it is a flight for profit then it must be a TIF (or training). You don't call it anything else. You don't represent or promote it as anything else to the potential customer. You take a passenger up in the left seat with the intention of introducing them to flying. You have then fulfilled your legal obligations in order to make a profit from the flight (in RAAus)

 

If a passenger uses it as a joyflight, fine! If the customer figures out for themselves this is a cheap way to get a flight over their house or whatever, fine! The customer is going in with their eyes open and know what they are getting. It is not up to you how your customer is using the TIF, nor is it your responsibility.....as long as you conduct the flight as an introduction to flying.

 

My only issue is using the word "scenic" (or anything else) to promote a TIF.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well you know its wrong, and if you take him up for reward, and he is killed, since you knew you were doing wrong you can be prosecuted under the crimes Act for manslaughter. If he is injured it's still a criminal matter.

 

There's a placard on the aircraft which needs to be addressed with more than a pointed finger.

 

The facade you give firstly wouldn't come up with you unless you were an instructor, in which case his motives would quickly become apparent as you outlined the training syllabus and assessed his plans.

 

Going into a court and saying "I had no idea he didn't intend to get involved in training" would get you a laugh, that's about all.

 

For a start you'd have to tell the court that once you got up there the passenger took out his camera and wasn't interested in flying the aircraft, so you flew him around for an hour.

 

However looming way over the top of this is if you had an engine failure, or any of the things much more likely to be encountered by NON - CPLs in a non-compliant aircraft from a bush strip, and you broke the passenger's back.

 

He's facing $6 to $9 million for care for the rest of his life and you'd have to be naive not to think he's going to spill the beans that it was just a joy flight for which he paid the Pilot in Command for a ticket.

 

Remember YOU are with one with the duty of care, not the innocent passenger.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
I am amused by the way some posters here have a risk aversion/fear of CASA or of being sued, that is, I reckon, totally paranoid.Personally, I would happily do without the constant carping that any of us might be sued (gosh, gee) or be attacked by CASA.

I don't need any of the offenders on this forum to do my worrying for me.

It's not that you yourself might get sued. It is the ramifications to you of anyone getting sued.

 

  • The death has occurred of an overseas tourist whilst on a TIF. (If I were a coroner that would be raising a few question marks for a start)
     
     
     
  • The school involved ADVERTISED "Scenic TIFs". (The plot thickens)
     
     
     
  • A coroner WILL get involved.
     
     
  • I'm willing to bet someone will get sued.
     
     

 

 

If a coroner or judge rules that the flight was an illegal joyflight because of the word scenic, or that many flights conducted by the school were not really TIFs, what will happen? Perhaps increased audits on all schools, more onerous maintenance schedules, more instructor training, further restrictions on TIFs and increased red tape? Does any CFI here want that? There have been those here bemoaning all the regulations we have been subjected to. Regulations, especially in aviation, are often introduced as a response to deaths. If you don't want further regulation, you need to at least be seen to be playing by the existing rules.

 

Nong, I once took a TIF with you. In it you walked me through many aspects of flying, you showed me the primary and secondary effects of controls. You let me take control. You even showed me how to find the wind direction from ripples on dams. It was great...I got a lot of joy out of the flight!003_cheezy_grin.gif.c5a94fc2937f61b556d8146a1bc97ef8.gif

 

If that's the way you conduct all your TIFs then you have absolutely nothing to worry about!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...