Now, I’m puzzled.
I notice we are all (myself included) falling into a habit of using the words ‘recreational’ and ‘private’ as separate entities; when, they are not.
Partly (IMO) this due to the long standing buggers muddle known as ‘operational classification’ as a subject of much confusion and a playground for the legal fraternity. It has been, for a long while now, a subject the ‘grown-ups’ of commercial operation have agonised over. The rest of the major aviation ‘authorities’ seem to have it fairly well sorted; alas, the Australian version seems to revel in the confusion and, typically, use the existing rules as a malleable yardstick to create ‘problems’ for selected operators. I digress, that is a subject for another day, when we get some clear air to discuss the finer points of the bloody awful regulations.
Back to the artificial debate of ‘recreational’ v ‘private’ operation. When I first kicked off, I had a job as the weekend ‘hanger rat’, got paid in flight hours, rather than money. I was a good deal for me and I enjoyed the work. I had in my tender care some lovely, ‘private’ aircraft. The owners would call up and request their aircraft to be ‘on-line’ at such and such a time, ready to depart. Carefully I’d extricate the aircraft from the full hanger, park it on the marks, give it a once over (tyres, windscreen, oil, etc.) and be there to meet ‘em when they showed up – add oil and fuel as requested. Sometimes, they would turn up with a full load – off to the races at Kickinatinalong for the weekend ( me, offering prayers to pagan gods for bad weather on the Sunday – I got to do the retrieval if they left the aircraft behind); or, for just a guest for a quick stooge about the CBD; whatever. These were ‘private’ operations; as in not commercial, they could be called recreational, but why split a hair? Not for hire or reward i.e. private.
Whether it be the humble C150 or the mighty Aztec (drool) the folk who owned and paid for their aeronautical pleasures operated in a ‘private’ capacity. Some, probably many, belonged to the AOPA or similar, an equal number did not – so what? It simply did not matter whether they did or did not; they were ‘private’ in the true sense of the word and if they could see a benefit in belonging to a tribe, they joined up – or not; as pleased them.
Thinking back to some of the ‘owners’ I dealt with (the good, the bad and the ugly) I wonder what they would have thought of the notion that now you must join and pay for the simple pleasure of taking the expensive aircraft on a Sunday morning sortie or a weekend away – with restrictions. All of this because some unacceptable ‘medical’ condition precluded them from their normal pursuit. Particularly when you consider the advances modern medical treatments have made to control some of the ailments which, in the past, prevented medical approval.
It begs the question – if you have a condition and a ‘specialist’ prognosis deems that the condition is controlled and unlikely to incapacitate, particularly during the short periods of life spent airborne – then why do the CASA medical guru’s feel the need to override this opinion? Then you must ask why a 'separate’ commercial outfit is allowed to utilise the CASA decision against to segregate and limit ‘private’ operations. A man is either fit enough to fly for an hour on Saturday; or, three hours on Sunday or he is not. What he flies, (privately) where and when has no bearing on the outcome; particularly if a known medical condition is ‘controlled’.
The existing structure is logically flawed; the EASA, UK and USA have managed, very nicely, to provided as much latitude and flexibility to their private operations as is possible – even then, they have (wisely) probably erred on the side of acceptable caution and risk mitigation.
So WTD is Australia playing at; apart from a deep game of silly buggers?
Toot – toot.
I notice we are all (myself included) falling into a habit of using the words ‘recreational’ and ‘private’ as separate entities; when, they are not.
Partly (IMO) this due to the long standing buggers muddle known as ‘operational classification’ as a subject of much confusion and a playground for the legal fraternity. It has been, for a long while now, a subject the ‘grown-ups’ of commercial operation have agonised over. The rest of the major aviation ‘authorities’ seem to have it fairly well sorted; alas, the Australian version seems to revel in the confusion and, typically, use the existing rules as a malleable yardstick to create ‘problems’ for selected operators. I digress, that is a subject for another day, when we get some clear air to discuss the finer points of the bloody awful regulations.
Back to the artificial debate of ‘recreational’ v ‘private’ operation. When I first kicked off, I had a job as the weekend ‘hanger rat’, got paid in flight hours, rather than money. I was a good deal for me and I enjoyed the work. I had in my tender care some lovely, ‘private’ aircraft. The owners would call up and request their aircraft to be ‘on-line’ at such and such a time, ready to depart. Carefully I’d extricate the aircraft from the full hanger, park it on the marks, give it a once over (tyres, windscreen, oil, etc.) and be there to meet ‘em when they showed up – add oil and fuel as requested. Sometimes, they would turn up with a full load – off to the races at Kickinatinalong for the weekend ( me, offering prayers to pagan gods for bad weather on the Sunday – I got to do the retrieval if they left the aircraft behind); or, for just a guest for a quick stooge about the CBD; whatever. These were ‘private’ operations; as in not commercial, they could be called recreational, but why split a hair? Not for hire or reward i.e. private.
Whether it be the humble C150 or the mighty Aztec (drool) the folk who owned and paid for their aeronautical pleasures operated in a ‘private’ capacity. Some, probably many, belonged to the AOPA or similar, an equal number did not – so what? It simply did not matter whether they did or did not; they were ‘private’ in the true sense of the word and if they could see a benefit in belonging to a tribe, they joined up – or not; as pleased them.
Thinking back to some of the ‘owners’ I dealt with (the good, the bad and the ugly) I wonder what they would have thought of the notion that now you must join and pay for the simple pleasure of taking the expensive aircraft on a Sunday morning sortie or a weekend away – with restrictions. All of this because some unacceptable ‘medical’ condition precluded them from their normal pursuit. Particularly when you consider the advances modern medical treatments have made to control some of the ailments which, in the past, prevented medical approval.
It begs the question – if you have a condition and a ‘specialist’ prognosis deems that the condition is controlled and unlikely to incapacitate, particularly during the short periods of life spent airborne – then why do the CASA medical guru’s feel the need to override this opinion? Then you must ask why a 'separate’ commercial outfit is allowed to utilise the CASA decision against to segregate and limit ‘private’ operations. A man is either fit enough to fly for an hour on Saturday; or, three hours on Sunday or he is not. What he flies, (privately) where and when has no bearing on the outcome; particularly if a known medical condition is ‘controlled’.
The existing structure is logically flawed; the EASA, UK and USA have managed, very nicely, to provided as much latitude and flexibility to their private operations as is possible – even then, they have (wisely) probably erred on the side of acceptable caution and risk mitigation.
So WTD is Australia playing at; apart from a deep game of silly buggers?
Toot – toot.