Jump to content
fly_tornado

CASA set to "fix" community service flights

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, M61A1 said:

How the F**k do you get "double standard" out of that?????.....that is exactly the difference. Commercial = for money/reward, Private = not for money/reward.

If I drive a taxi and take a neighbour to the doctor, I need a taxi licence, if I pick them up in my private car I need nothing more than a driver's licence. Not complicated.

It's not broken, leave it alone. Sometimes bad decisions are made by pilots whether they have a CPL or not.

In a newspaper article I read the other day on interviewee summed it up when they said something along the lines that they felt that CASA was insulting in that they felt CASA thought that they were too stupid to understand the risks in using Angel Flight.

I think they were right.

You should give CASA a call; they're always interested in a different take on things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

You should give CASA a call; they're always interested in a different take on things.

 With the amount of pushback they are getting from the public, they might need to consider that they could be the ones with a different take on things. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, turboplanner said:

In both cases, decisions which most VFR pilots would have made were not made, and people died as a result; that's not acceptable.

 

So you are saying the rules and regulations they are/were flying under was NOT the problem.

The fact those conditions were broken IS the problem. 

 

Meaning there is no need to add more regulation if the current system is followed adequately.

I personally think pilot education and increased Angelflight support/overwatch of flights is sufficient.  

 

 

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, turboplanner said:

How would you fix it to avoid further examples like this then Jim?

I would not try to save stupid people from themselves- the alternative is to legislate for the lowest common denominator which in CASA terms is to ban people flying in aircraft.

Flying in a private aircraft has always been associated with higher risk than RPT .... and the populace at large knows this. A large placard on the side of the aircraft along the lines of " All who proceed to fly in this aircraft risk death" may stop some people but then who believes everything they read?

Edited by Jim McDowall
more thoughts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Jim McDowall said:

I would not try to save stupid people from themselves- the alternative is to legislate for the lowest common denominator which in CASA terms is to ban people flying in aircraft.

Some of these people take themselves out; some are banned from their unacceptable activities; nothing new in that, people are banned from driving, banned form practising medicine etc. every day. There is no move to legislate for the lowest common denominator, or there would be changes to the PPL qualifications.

6 hours ago, Jim McDowall said:

Flying in a private aircraft has always been associated with higher risk than RPT .... and the populace at large knows this. A large placard on the side of the aircraft along the lines of " All who proceed to fly in this aircraft risk death" may stop some people but then who believes everything they read?

There are four main levels; RPT, Charter and operations requiring CPL qualifications, operations requiring PPL qualifications, and operations requiring PC.

In this case the operation expectation fits the CPL category but has been allowed to occur in the PPL category; that's the issue.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, turboplanner said:

In this case the operation expectation fits the CPL category but has been allowed to occur in the PPL category; that's the issue.

In fact it clearly fits the classification of a private operation that can be conducted with a PPL: CAR 2 (7)(d)(v) the carriage of persons or the carriage of goods without a charge for the carriage being made.

 

However, to me it appears that perhaps it should require an AOC: CAR 206 (1)(a)(vii) ambulance functions (or a purpose that is substantially similar).

 

The issue seems to be that that gives Angel Flight more responsibility than they want to take on. They would rather that all responsibility rested on the pilot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Turbo said, "There is nothing to stop CPLs volunteering their service for the same aircraft for these flights."

 

There's possibly an economic cost to the CPL. Don't they have a maximum limit on the number of hours they can fly in, say, a month? If so, would the hours involved in a volunteer flight reduce the number of hours the CPL had to earn a living? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure the comparison of the skills of a taxi driver and the ordinary driver being totally relevant. The fact is the CPL is a much higher demonstrated level of skill and knowledge, but even that won't get you a job anywhere till you have logged more hours and experience on suitable aircraft. Night VMC is also a concept with issues. It's harder to see if you are going Ito become in IMC  PIFR is better. but recency is a factor.

  Even shows like air ambulance etc have had issues with pilot fatigue related incidents in the past and   a lot of their work is single pilot in BAD weather. I've done a few "searches"  for missing planes, people etc  and you do break a few rules of commonsense if not at law ie. fly low near  sea surface and cliffs etc. the job in that instance is under a pressure that's part of it to make it effective.. You have to get close to be effective.

  Inherently an angel flight is a" normal" flight just like what Pilots can do privately if they wish. EXCEPT there  is no doubt some pilots will go when they wouldn't go privately, considering the "urgency" to merit it. This is probably misplaced as it's non urgent transport not medically required but more convenient for people to use to avoid a more onerous road trip. They feel they are providing a service, (which they are) but it's nature is not such as to justify significant  extra risks. Nev

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, old man emu said:

Turbo said, "There is nothing to stop CPLs volunteering their service for the same aircraft for these flights."

 

There's possibly an economic cost to the CPL. Don't they have a maximum limit on the number of hours they can fly in, say, a month? If so, would the hours involved in a volunteer flight reduce the number of hours the CPL had to earn a living? 

Yes, but from the tales of woe I've read over the years, most of them have hours to burn and would welcome the currency experience if they could get the aircraft for a reasonable rate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, facthunter said:

Not sure the comparison of the skills of a taxi driver and the ordinary driver being totally relevant. The fact is the CPL is a much higher demonstrated level of skill and knowledge, but even that won't get you a job anywhere till you have logged more hours and experience on suitable aircraft. Night VMC is also a concept with issues. It's harder to see if you are going Ito become in IMC  PIFR is better. but recency is a factor.

  Even shows like air ambulance etc have had issues with pilot fatigue related incidents in the past and   a lot of their work is single pilot in BAD weather. I've done a few "searches"  for missing planes, people etc  and you do break a few rules of commonsense if not at law ie. fly low near  sea surface and cliffs etc. the job in that instance is under a pressure that's part of it to make it effective.. You have to get close to be effective.

  Inherently an angel flight is a" normal" flight just like what Pilots can do privately if they wish. EXCEPT there  is no doubt some pilots will go when they wouldn't go privately, considering the "urgency" to merit it. This is probably misplaced as it's non urgent transport not medically required but more convenient for people to use to avoid a more onerous road trip. They feel they are providing a service, (which they are) but it's nature is not such as to justify significant  extra risks. Nev

That appears to be the gist of what's happened FH.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not a lot of spare CPL sitting around regional areas with nothing to do

As far as urgency, try cancelling an appointment with a specialist and see when the next available date is

The whole concept is based around people who live where they cannot access regular medical treatments or Id say spare CPL services. 

If not Angel flight possibly no treatment, on balance a lower spec air flight (and all the danger it exposes them to) may well extend their life

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It reminds me of the joke by the Conchords (? spelling). The year is 2100. The bad news: there are no more elephants. The good news: no more unethical treatment of elephants. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/20/2019 at 7:14 AM, old man emu said:

Turbo said, "There is nothing to stop CPLs volunteering their service for the same aircraft for these flights."

 

There's possibly an economic cost to the CPL. Don't they have a maximum limit on the number of hours they can fly in, say, a month? If so, would the hours involved in a volunteer flight reduce the number of hours the CPL had to earn a living? 

I know several CPLs who fly angel flights but they are not flying as CPLs for a living as such. 

 

Plenty of people who basically fly for fun but have gone on to get CPL either for the personal achievement or to just fly the occasional job for local aero club or for a local charter company. 

 

They fly for AF with no real effect on anything else. 

 

Also  CPL hours are limited but additional hours as Private flying  are not affected and vice versa. 

You can fly your max hours in the job and then go get in your RV etc and go private flying for as long as you want. And the private hours don’t limit your work hours. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Federal Court rules against Angel Flight

19 March 2019

The Federal Court has dismissed an application from Angel Flight to stay the Civil Aviation Safety Authority's new regulations around community service flights (CSF).

In a hearing in the Victorian District of the Federal Court on Friday and Monday, Justice Anastassiou heard arguments from both sides, eventually ruling in favour of CASA and awarding costs against Angel Flight.

Although the Federal Court is yet to make its reasons public, witnesses in the court room said the application was struck out because the court believed that CASA would not have made the ruling unless there was a safety issue.

Angel Flight is believed to have disputed the data on which CASA has based its justification for the new regulations, but the court also declined to make a ruling based on the data.

The issue is now with parliament. The Centre Alliance has already moved a Motion of Disallowance in the House of Representatives and Senator Rex Patrick has indicated he will do the same in the Senate when it sits again in April.

In the last session of Senate Estimates, Senator Patrick asked CASA to table the statistics that show Angel Flight operations are four-to-five times more likely to have an incident or accident that a regular GA private flight. The question was taken on notice.

  • Informative 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×