[Peetwo]

Angel Flight embuggerance update - 13/02/19:

From AOPA's Facebook page..

Take 5 mins from your day today to stand with AOPA Australia, AngelFlight and all volunteer pilots in calling for CASA to;

COMMUNICATE, COLLABORATE & EDUCATE - NOT OVER-REGULATE.

The Hon Michael McCormack MP
Deputy Prime Minister
Minister for Infrastructure,Transport and Regional Development
Leader of the Nationals
Federal Member for the Riverina
Telephone: (02) 6921 4600
Email: michael.mccormack.mp@aph.gov.au

References: https://auntypru.com/forum/showthread.ph...79#pid9879 & https://auntypru.com/2019/02/

An evening with TOM.


Ref: https://www.facebook.com/AOPAaustralia/p...__tn__=K-R

---

The Essendon debacle and the Angel Flight thing. The notion of holistic ‘safety’ and the best interests of the public and industry. CASA have spent a good deal of time (and by extension money) on the current Angel Flight How de Do. Ostensibly, related to their great concern for the safety of those folk who need transport to medical treatment. A real safety case which needs not only the minister’s support, but the Chair of the CASA board must be dragged out of whichever cat-house or opium den he was hiding in to support this great quest for public safety. The perpetrators of the great potential for disaster being Australian qualified Private Pilots; who are reimbursed their fuel costs by the charity. This all related to a debateable ’legal’ technicality in the very rules which CASA wrote. CASA have a remarkable number of operational ‘dispensations’ and ‘exemptions’ out there; some as old as industry itself. So, if the ‘technical’ illegality of AF pilots being reimbursed their fuel costs cannot be resolved; then CASA must either sort the rules out (mission impossible) or; issue an exemption until they finally do; or, perhaps find a way to fund the flights, through charter operators. That, or kill off one of the most useful charities in Australia. The espoused ‘public safety’ case is a gross nonsense: as risible, twisted and perverted as the mind which dreamed it up five years ago. There is barely a ‘real safety case’ to be discussed.

---

Ref: ABC News 22 February 2017 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-22/p...ss/8290906

P2 Addendum: Via Ben Morgan CEO AOPA Australia.

 &..

Dear Angel Flight Supporter

You will be aware that the government agency, CASA, has taken steps to restrict our volunteer pilots, and to ban helicopters, to the extent that the viability of the charity may be placed under threat. Despite repeated requests, the agency has declined to give us, or the Australian Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPS), any safety case, or risk analysis, to support these restrictions. Importantly, CASA has deliberately bypassed its own policies, protocols and ethical standards, by failing to adhere to its regulatory reform criteria. Instead, the CEO of CASA has issued a Direction, simply a ‘law’ which is signed by him. I have repeatedly asked the CEO why he has done this, and the response was, firstly, ‘because I have the authority’, and then when pressed further, ‘because it’s easy’.

I have asked the National Operations and Standards Exec Manager, what the new rules have to do with the two volunteer flight accidents which have occurred in the last 16 years (both involving bad weather), and his answer to me was to effect that they bore no relationship to the accidents. The ATSB (Safety Bureau) has not yet released its report into the last of these accidents, in 2017.

These accidents (two in 46,000 flights) are attracting unprecedented attention from CASA, and in particular, when compared with the high number of fatal accidents which have occurred in commercial operations in Australia during the same period. Initially, CASA was underpinning its rules on the basis that our passengers are ‘uninformed’ (that is, they don’t understand that they are not travelling on an airline or commercial operation, or understand the differences). We have provided CASA with our entire suite of documents which the pilots and passengers (and drivers) must read, sign and acknowledge, and the videos which the passengers must watch prior to flying. We are perplexed as to why CASA thinks that our disadvantaged rural passengers cannot understand what they read, see or sign.

They are also implying that they have no confidence in the training, testing and licensing of their own pilots. You all know that we only accept as volunteers, those pilots holding CASA licences, and flying CASA registered and maintained aircraft for private flight in Australia. Many of our volunteers are airline pilots, commercial pilots, and of course, private pilots. Their new rules do nothing to address CASA’s training or licensing issues – they merely seek to restrict those pilots, after issuing their licences, so that they can fly anyone else in Australia subject to the provisions of their licences, but not rural people coming into the cities with Angel Flight volunteer pilots for scheduled non-emergency medical appointments.

Angel Flight does not know why there has been such a concerted attack on these volunteer pilots and aircraft – given that it is CASA’s responsibility to ensure a proper level of training before issuing the licence – it is not Angel Flight’s job to take responsibility for training under CASA regulations: we rely on them to give licences only to those who have qualified.

After first alleging that they were introducing these rules, with what seemed undue haste just before Xmas, to improve safety (although they don’t relate to the two accidents since 2003), it then moved to relying on the ‘uninformed’ argument, then changed its thrust to ‘ we are doing what the USA is doing’. That is also grossly misleading, as the private flights in the USA are not regulated in this fashion. They only regulate what they regard to be commercial operations and give an exemption if they are flying for a charity. Finally, last Friday, the chair of the CASA board said we are not ‘technically private flights’. How that relates to their restrictive proposals is perplexing- particularly as CASA has never challenged our private status, and the statement bears no relationship to the proposed restrictions.

A very worrying event occurred last week – CASA called a regional TV station, offering them an exclusive statement if they would embargo the story until this Wednesday. That statement was from the chair of the CASA Board, Tony Matthews, who said CASA was going ahead with all but one of the rules. He alleged they were to table it in parliament on Tuesday, but not release that information until Wednesday – thereby limiting the time within which to lodge a Notice of Motion to Disallow the Directions. More worryingly, they did not tell Angel Flight about this – merely advised a TV station. Quite alarming behavior from a government agency, particularly that it issued the statement on 7 February, a mere 5 working days since the close of the brief public ‘consultation’ – there were 230 submissions, many of them being lodged on the last couple of days. It is difficult to see how they could come up with this decision if they were taking these submissions into account (and Angel Flight has privately received many copies of these). The leaked exclusive was then conveyed to The Australian newspaper, and published on 8th February : again, neither the CASA Board, nor CEO, nor anyone else from CASA, had advised Angel Flight of either its decision or its intention to make a statement or table the proposals, : there was no communication from the agency of any kind, nor to AOPA, represents thousands of general aviation pilots, and who had been communicating with CASA over the issue.

Angel Flight takes a proactive position in relation to safety, but does not accept that CASA should bypass proper regulatory reform procedures to rush these changes through, knowing they will have an adverse effect on these valuable services, and that they are unsupported by any safety case or risk analysis. This should be workshopped by industry and the submissions properly evaluated, and a safety risk analysis conducted and released, before reforms are proposed, and these should be done by regulatory amendment – the proposed administrative directive cuts across many regulations, pursuant to which the pilots achieved their licences. CASA appears to be saying that Angel Flight is responsible for CASA’s own licensing standards. This administrative directive both restricts the rights of pilots to fly under their CASA licences, and could jeopardise valuable volunteer work. Even more extraordinary is that CASA has banned helicopters from flying for Angel Flight, although there have been no heli accidents in the volunteer service,: more astounding is that CASA say it is acceptable to get the total aeronautical time required, in a helicopter, but then ban helicopters! This is particularly unfortunate when many of our rural people in flooded communities may need help getting their families to medical treatment when airfields are flooded. They have offered no explanation for this ban.
We urge you all, and your colleagues, to urgently contact both your local Member of the House of Representatives, and all Senators, requesting they lodge a Notice of Motion for Disallowance, so that the issue of safety can be assessed in a measured, educated, and fact-based fashion, adopting the usual protocols and industry input. There is only a brief window of opportunity to do this -the Notice must be lodged this week, possibly Wednesday, Thursday or Friday, on the basis that CASA will deliver it on Tuesday (but again, they have not allowed us this information – we are relying upon what the chair of their Board has said to a television station).

Let’s all pull together to help people in the bush have a better quality of life – contact all federal members of parliament now by email or phone (link to a list attached).

Senators: https://www.aph.gov.au/Senators_and_Memb...gen=0&ps=0
Members: https://www.aph.gov.au/Senators_and_Memb...gen=0&ps=0

Thanks for your support,

Marjorie Pagani CEO
Angel Flight

Unless I missed it? A quick peruse of the HoR Hansard for yesterday's shambolic sitting of parliament, would appear to show amongst the multitude of CASA exemptions, legislative instruments etc..etc, that the Angel Flight EMBUGGERANCE legislative instrument is yet to be tabled? 

See here: 

 

Civil Aviation Act 1988 —

Civil Aviation Regulations 1988—

Number of Cabin Attendants (Alliance Airlines) Direction 2019—CASA 01/19 [F2019L00095].

Repeal of CASA 178/10 Instrument 2019—CASA 03/19 [F2019L00066].

Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 and Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998—

The 2019 Bright Open Australian Nationals Instrument 2019—CASA EX01/19 [F2019L00011].

The 2019 Corryong Hang Gliding Cup Instrument 2018—CASA EX174/18 [F2018L01847].

The 2019 Corryong Paragliding Open Instrument 2019—CASA EX09/19 [F2019L00047].

Civil Aviation Safety Amendment (Part 91) Regulations 2018 [F2018L01783].

Civil Aviation Safety Amendment (Part 119) Regulations 2018 [F2018L01787].

Civil Aviation Safety Amendment (Part 121) Regulations 2018 [F2018L01784].

Civil Aviation Safety Amendment (Part 133) Regulations 2018 [F2018L01788].

Civil Aviation Safety Amendment (Part 135) Regulations 2018 [F2018L01782].

Civil Aviation Safety Amendment (Part 138) Regulations 2018 [F2018L01789].

Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998—

Authorised Flight Examiners Exemption 2018—CASA EX159/18 [F2018L01636]—Replacement explanatory statement.

Authorised Release Certificate (FAA and EASA Approved Components) Exemption 2018—CASA EX168/18 [F2018L01793].

Carriage of cockpit voice recorders and flight data recorders exemption 2019—CASA EX10/19 [F2019L00078].

Elevator Push Tube—Replacement—AD/DW-1/1 [F2019L00097].

Emergency Power Lever Shear Wire—AD/CESSNA 208/18 Amdt 1 [F2019L00082].

English Language Proficiency Assessments Exemption 2018—CASA EX111/18 [F2018L01214]—Replacement explanatory statement.

Horizontal Stabiliser—Centre Hinge Bracket Flange—AD/DHC-6/77 [F2019L00105].

Horizontal Stabilizer—AD/BELL 206/57 Amdt 4 [F2019L00063].

Life jacket standard (Skyplan Australia Pty Ltd) exemption 2019—CASA EX11/19 [F2019L00075].

Part 149 (Approved Self-administering Aviation Organisations) Manual of Standards 2018 [F2018L01800].

Passenger Seats and Passenger Seat Attachment Fittings—AD/DHC-2/26 Amdt 1 [F2019L00019].

Recording of Time-in-service (Class A Aircraft) Exemption 2018—CASA EX167/18 [F2018L01792].

Repeal of Airworthiness Directive AD/DHC-6/71—CASA ADCX 003/19 [F2019L00104].

Repeal of Airworthiness Directive AD/F406/16—CASA ADCX 002/19 [F2019L00101].

Repeal of Airworthiness Directives AD/DHC-6/31 Amdt 4, AD/DHC-6/50, AD/DHC-6/51 Amdt 4 and AD/DHC-6/70—CASA ADCX 001/19 [F2019L00041].

On the AF war front, I note that AOPA Oz last night changed their Facebook Header picture...



  Also from the AOPA Oz FB page a letter to miniscule McDo'Naught from instructor and commercial pilot Nicholas Christie : 

Nicholas Christie · 14:31 Nice work Ben. A call to the Minister. Let me add a letter I just wrote and sent to the Minister:

Dear Mr McCormack

I’m a professional Flight Instructor and Commercial Pilot, member of RAAus, SAAA and AOPA.

The outcome of the recent CASA legislative changes that have removed the rights of rural people to utilise Angel Flight, is highly disappointing to myself and my colleagues.

CASA’s changes (irrespective of the removal of the AD/ENG4 requirements), will force Angel Flight Pilots to stop their services to rural communities. 

Now an Angel Flight pilot requires that the minimum hours logged by the Pilot in Command of that flight are over TWICE the requirements of a Commercial Pilot! This is absolutely unnecessary from a safety perspective.

Moreover, the new proposed changes will NOT bring back the people who died in the recent two (out of approx. 16,000 flights) that have been conducted through Angel Flight. And, as a professional Commercial Pilot with over 1500 flight hours, I am absolutely confident that the proposed changes would NOT have prevented the accidents if they were to have occurred after these proposed legislative changes take place. 

They will not prevent future accidents either.

It is appalling that a National Party leader and Minister for Transport has allowed this policy to affect the rural community that you represent. Sadly, the people of Australia are the losers because of these changes. The families that will lose this vital service because of these changes will not be able to receive treatment, and families will be forced to make more difficult financial and other choices.

As you may know, the AOPA (Aircraft Owners and Pilot’s Association) has been very vocal about this issue and vehamently opposed to the changes. And they have the support of the General Aviation community in Australia. They have the support of the people that you represent. They have the support of the general Australian population, and they have the support of the Rural communities that you ought to be properly representing.

CASA, yet again, has proven itself to be creating further mistrust, and is undermining any remaining confidence in the aviation community and further reducing the ability of the industry to grow and prosper. And Minister, I’m saddened to provide you my honest assessment that you are simply listening to the bureaucrats that are feeding you untruths and recommending policies that are contributing to the decline, rather than making informed decisions about what’s best for Australia.

1. Will you now support AOPA’s call for a turning point (a new era) in General Aviation in Australia and reject the CASA proposed legislative changes? 

2. Will you do the right thing for the people of Australia and reconsider CASA’s proposals and put forward a motion of disallowance in respect of this legislative change? 

3. Will you direct CASA to finally start to stop over-regulating, and instead communicate, collaborate and educate instead?

With the election looming and an Australian population looking to you and your party for leadership, I urge you to take the steps needed to fight for commonsense, and the people that you represent.

Kind regards

Nicholas Christie

 
MTF...P2