Quote:P2 - 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?
Amen to that – Why do we persist in fretting over law that is only good for lining the bottom of a kitty litter tray.. Complex, convoluted with enough wriggle room for an army of synchronised swimmers. No one else has these problems, at least not those who adopt ICAO Annexe 6.
The NZ regulations covering this type of operation are their Part 125 have a look and then compare. We need to ask WHY TF do we persist with repairing some of the most useless (operationally) laws on the face of the planet, when we could simply embrace Annexe 6 and 'air transport'. It's like the 61 fiasco, with everyone rolling over and accepting 61 as 'gospel' only needing another 1000 pages of 'tweeking'. BOLLOCKS – it's just an excuse to allow CASA the freedom, in law, to make anything that pleases them stick.
Simple law that may be readily complied with, without loop holes, no if's and's, but's or maybe's is the only solution. That'd duck 'em.
NZ Part 125 – HERE – from AP library, spam and virus free. Read it and weep.