[Peetwo]

I note the PAIN associates have generated a long string of emails which I have diligently ploughed my way through; all related to the class of operation and the implications of classification for those on board.  There is only one way to describe the arguments, pro and con – they should not be occurring.

What the arguments demonstrate was summed up by the MConvict – 206 is bad law.  It has been bad law awaiting rectification since circa 1998.  It is still bad law to this day.  It is typical of the unholy mess CASA have created in their vainglorious, amateurish, bumbling  quest for 'regulatory' reform.  CASA have no intention of fixing the problem, the many escape paths and wriggle room for legal eagles make it an irresistible garden, in which to grow embuggerance. 

This should have been a simple matter, Medi-vac flight under Part XYZ, those involved insured either as essential crew members or passenger.  Hell, the way it stands BC husband was probably illegal, but who would know.  The operation was 'commercial' – as in not for free.  The doctor and nurse were not volunteers but paid, essential crew.  The flight crew were paid to be there.  It should not be so unclear that a Supreme court Judge must hear and rule on a complex matter, five years old, which involves multiple layers of legal contradiction, designed, capable and being argued down to the last comma in a sentence.

This is why bad law needs to be sorted, never mind charter or airwork – it was a commercial operation, employing professionals to ensure the safety of the passengers.  The rest is just semantics generated by a deliberately structured rule set which removes CASA from all responsibility and provides a screen behind which lawyers may whisper and plot.

Too little, too late, too long, too complex, too expensive and far too much bull shit.   The whole thing, as disgusting as it is dishonest now as it was 25 years and $250,000,000 ago.  Now tarnished and poorer, no closer to resolution now than it was a quarter century ago.

Selah.

I too have been following the PAIN email chain.. ..& wholeheartedly agree with the Ferryman post..

I would also add that the changing definition for Aerial Ambulance/Medevac flights being categorised  as 'air transport' will only fix part of the problem that CAR206 is bad law. In any other 1st world country that are signatories to ICAO (which is all of them) for many years have adhered to the  'commercial air transport' definition as outlined in ICAO Annex 6, Parts I and III to the Chicago Convention.

Reference page 10 of CASA NPRM 1304:
 

3.1.1 Interpretation of medical transport flights

Leading aviation nations, such as the UK, Europe, Canada, New Zealand and the USA (for the USA, specifically when the patient is on board the aircraft), recognise that MT flights, including:

• patient inter-hospital retrieval
  
• international patient repatriation
  
• emergency medical service (EMS) operations,
  

 ..are conducted as air transport operations under the authority of an AOC issued by the operator’s State. It is widely understood that this approach to classification and level of regulation has many advantages for the overall context of these flights, particularly from operational and safety systems perspectives.

These nations have applied definitions and applicability of commercial air transport (CAT) Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPs) – as outlined in Annex 6, Parts I and III to the Chicago Convention – to their operations. In Annex 6 to the Chicago Convention, the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) defines commercial air transport as:

commercial air transport operation (is) an aircraft operation involving the transport of passengers, cargo or mail for remuneration or hire.4

Clearly, the above mentioned countries have interpreted this to mean that the transport of passengers for MT flights is an AT operation, and have written their legislation for these operations accordingly. CASA is of the view that such an interpretation confers many safety advantages to MT flights, chiefly that the full range of organisational, equipment, flight crew and safety system standards confirmed by the issue of an AOC are applicable to such operations.

ICAO reinforces this through their definition of an AOC:

Air operator certificate (AOC). A certificate authorizing an operator to carry out specified commercial air transport operations5

I cannot help but think that until such time as CAR206 is banished to the dustbin of bad law, that we will again be revisiting this with other aerial work EMS operations. SAR for example can at various times have 'non-essential' crew on-board like volunteer Air Search Observers (ASOs), so how would they be classified in a similar incident/accident to the Norfolk ditching?

MTF..P2