AOPA Australia -

(02-05-2019, 08:24 AM)Peetwo Wrote:  
(02-05-2019, 07:41 AM)Kharon Wrote:  Death – by the numbers.

1) Death by building. The DFO at Essendon has a similar ‘Kill ratio’ to AF, five dead in roughly the same time period. Why is CASA not mandating that no more tall building be allowed in active runway OCS areas and why FDS is that building still standing?

2) Death of Democracy CASA style.

Pagani .."But I think the real focus is on how they are attempting to bypass proper democratic and legislative processes ( quite apart from lack of consultation with AF and industry). To take away rights or impose restrictions on licence holders, with the stroke of the CEO pen, is dictatorial and an abuse of process"...

3) Death of Business. Part 61 went a long way to delivering the fatal wound; but 135 will be the Coup de grâce. What happened to government encouraging ‘small’ business anyway?

4) Death of ministerial credibility. Was there too much heat generated by the Essendon DFO fireball? Too much toxicity around the PFAS horror story? Too much noise over the ‘drones’? Too many questions about CASA’s petulant incompetence? Was a ‘distraction’ needed? Was AF an ideal, easy target?

Re point 4 – a stretch, probably a bit fanciful, but even so, one could be forgiven for beginning to think that way. To declare the Essendon DFO an ‘acceptable’ risk and declare Angel Flight as ‘dangerous’ beggars the imagination. I must do some homework – it is said that the insurance industry have incredibly good ‘risk’ assessment tools, which makes good sense – considering. Have they upped their premiums on Angel Flight aircraft I wonder. If the Insurers believed there was an increased risk because a sick Kiddie was on board, I reckon they’d increase their fee’s in proportion to the perceived risk in a heartbeat. But they haven’t. Hmmm.

While in a wondering frame of mind; I wonder why the other charity flight organisation are not screaming to the high heavens about the CASA edicts? That ‘Little Wings’ outfit for instance – dead silence from them. Aye well, ‘tis done and cannot be undone without a top level punch-up; not that the minister will get in the ring. Carmody has told McDoNaught to bugger off and 6G Darren has obliged. Stellar.

Toot – toot.

Hmm...here's a response to the AF imbroglio and this week's SBG blog post from former Captain Robert J Boser off Christine Negroni's FB Flying Lessons Group page that definitely fits in here -  Rolleyes


Quote:Robert J. Boser This article, illustrates again and again WHY no Nation should be ruled by UN-elected Bureaucrats who are given the power to make their own laws -- complete with criminal penalties for non-compliance -- Without the voting approval of each and every word in any proposed LAW -- by their duly-elected Legislators.

The LAWS, which are the substance of the "RULE OF LAW" concept of Western Civilization, can only be created and enforced by duly ELECTED representatives of the citizens of any Republic.

"Laws" which are made by one or more Diktators, amount to nothing more that outright TYRANNY. They are not legitimate laws at all. 

To the contrary, according the the most brilliantly reasoned document in Human History (The American Declaration of Independence, circa 1776) such Diktator "laws" are grounds to throw off the offending Govt:

"...whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Chocfrog to Captain Boser... Wink 

(02-05-2019, 08:55 AM)thorn bird Wrote:  "We are fast approaching
the stage of the ultimate
Inversion:

The stage where the government is free
to do anything it pleases, while the citizens
may act only by permission."

AYN RAND
Reply

Angel Flight embuggerance update -  Angry  

Via AOPA Oz FB page:

Quote:DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER MICHAEL MCCORMACK RESPONDS TO CONCERNS FOR ANGEL FLIGHT AFTER CASA PROPOSALS
The Daily Advertiser, Annie Lewis, 5th Feb 2019

The Deputy Prime Minister has responded to concerns that the Civil Aviation Safety Authority’s new proposal could discriminate against a charity that flies sick children from Wagga to the major cities for treatment.

Angel Flight in the last 10 years, has coordinated more than 1000 flights for Wagga residents to access medical help and has raised concerns about CASA’s proposal.

Changes put forward include increasing minimum pilot hour requirements, which would bar some of the volunteers with lower hours, and requiring aircraft engines to be maintained to commercial charter standards, which could cost $85,000 or up to $120,000.

Benjamin Morgan, executive director of Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association of Australia, said the proposal is ridiculous.

“These are changes that are not supported by the aviation industry and community,’ he said.

“I am astounded that CASA has thought they can ram these changes into the system and subvert the standard regulatory change processes.

“If CASA were so confident in their recommendations that they’re attempting to fire through then why didn’t they go through the normal process.”

Mr Morgan said he wanted to know whether or not the Prime Minister or Deputy Prime Minister will “stand up for families in the bush or will they abandon them”.

Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development, Michael McCormack, said the policy is far from discriminating against regional people.

“The intent of this policy around community service flights by CASA is to ensure that a suitable level of aviation safety is maintained for regional and rural Australians who need to use these important resources to seek medical assistance away from their home,” he said.

“The proposals being put forward by CASA are as a result of two fatal accidents and following these tragic accidents in recent years, CASA initiated a public consultation on the CSF sector as a whole.

“The Australian Transport Safety Bureau also continues its investigation into the most recent fatal accident and has initiated an investigation into the landing incident in Wagga last week involving a CSF organised by Angel Flight.”

Mr McCormack said no flights have been grounded and operations are continuing while this process is underway to improve aviation safety standards and outcomes.

Mr Morgan said the best, most reliable way to determine if changes in aviation regulations and safety standard is to overlay the proposals against historic accidents and ask if it could have been prevented.

“The answer is, not one of the recommendations has any relevance to any historical accident,” he said.

“What we are seeing is a disgraceful attempt of CASA to fear monger and create emotional reactions to support these proposals.

“They are devoid of safety case and devoid of a risk assessment to justify it and it is a gross abuse of the aviation industry rights and the rights of Australians.”

He expected, Mr McCormack said, CASA to take a pragmatic approach to ensure aviation safety is maintained whilst taking into consideration the importance of operations such as Angel Flight and Little Wings, especially in rural and regional Australia.

“I have been in contact with both the CASA chief executive officer Shane Carmody and Angel Flight chief executive officer Marjorie Pagani to discuss the proposed changes and I will continue to monitor the consultation process closely,” he said.

“CASA believes most pilots currently conducting CSFs would already meet the proposed new standards and that these proposed changes will not exclude many of Angel Flight’s volunteer pilots.

“The proposed approach is comparable to that taken by the Federal Aviation Administration in the United States in response to similar safety concerns following a number of fatal accidents with pilots conducting CSFs on a charitable basis.

“The FAA introduced additional requirements in 2013 and the charitable medical flight sector has continued to provide these services.”

[Image: 51332168_1473861682744752_22795595531188...e=5CB9082E]

[Image: 51541514_1473861712744749_66265548331071...e=5CFF7CFE]



Comments: 

Brett Pulford - Well that's a disappointing response. Comparing CASA to FAA is not valid or useful considering the costs involved in flying in the USA are substantially lower than here.

Out of curiosity does anyone know what the 'additional requirements' introduced by the FAA were? I tried to find them but couldn't.

For me the real kicker is that the proposed rules wouldn't have prevented the two accidents, so it can't be claimed to be being introduced as a result of them. It's really as simple as that. That's without even looking at the impact it'll have on the services provided.



Mark Westcott - What a pathetic political response.

Nothing in the new restrictions from CASA would have prevented the two accidents.

They are out of touch and so is our deputy prime minister.

MTF...P2  Dodgy
Reply

The Rise and fall of the Regulator?

Robin Speed is president of the Rule of Law Association of Australia; he wrote a seriously accurate appraisal of ‘Regulatory’ bodies which, IMO fits CASA like a glove. Paul Pheelan published the article on the Pro Aviation web site – it is still there – HERE – and well worth the short time it takes to read.

M. Pagani - “To take away rights or impose restrictions on licence holders, with the stroke of the CEO’s pen, is dictatorial and an abuse of process. Our licences and maintenance requirements are governed by the Regs: any amendment should be by proper Regulatory change . By ambushing us all on the eve of long holidays , and by proposing an administrative direction, ensures no ‘interference’ by our elected representatives in parliament. Parliamentary members can disallow Regs - they cannot disallow a direction, and nor does it have to be presented to either House. The implications of this high-handed and undemocratic action, if allowed to proceed, sets a dangerous precedent which could see all or any of our aviation rights cancelled at the whim of CASA, and not the legislature.”

Carmody - “CASA has had various discussions with the relevant organisations on opportunities to enhance safety standards including pilot education and safety awareness, since the most recent fatal accident involving a flight facilitated by Angel Flight in 2017.  Not this one though I note.

The Carmody quote (above) caught my attention, well the first line did anyway.
“CASA has had various discussions with the relevant organisations”. etc.

It made me curious about with whom – exactly – CASA had been hob-knobbing. The curiosity bump was further aggravated by the deafening silence from organisations ‘similar’ to Angel Flight – curiously intriguing. You’d reckon a crew like ‘Little Wings’ - for example would be howling blue murder to anyone prepared to listen. But they are not – why? Perhaps it has something to do with this:-

Ben Morgan at AOPA (Aus) has had some ‘interesting’ documents released under the FOI Act. These documents should now be publically available, we shall see if P2 can drag ‘em indoors for us to take a long, careful look at. If he can’t get ‘em, I’m almost certain the Estimates committee can, in time for their ‘special’ sit down with the CASA boss – soon. That ‘special’ hearing should add a little more fire power to the rumoured legal actions filed on behalf of Angel Flight.

All rumour at the moment – so a pinch of salt is required. The tale so far has all the makings of a nice old dust up. Perhaps CASA have ventured two steps more than prudent into a very murky part of the Sleepy-Hollow swamp. What, with the miniscule being told, essentially, to bugger off and mind his own business and the Estimates committee getting ‘cranky’. We shall, in time, no doubt see who’s wings get clipped. Aye - MTF as we dig it up.

[Image: DyowqOtUwAE__Pe.jpg]

Toot – toot.
Reply

Ben Morgan;

“I am astounded that CASA has thought they can ram these changes into the system and subvert the standard regulatory change processes.

“If CASA were so confident in their recommendations that they’re attempting to fire through then why didn’t they go through the normal process.”


Ben raises a valid point which all of us have pretty much raised ourselves - why subvert the normal process on this occasion? Why Deputy PM? I challenge the pathetic Miniscule to crawl out from under his desk, and instead of having the PMC release a scripted response, we have the Miniscule explain in his own words why CASA didn’t follow normal process? Walk us through the process dear Miniscule, please explain it to us word for word......

Can’t wait to see that arrogant giant eared numpty sitting in front of Glen Sterle at Estimates! Oh happy days!! Nothing will change and CASA will get away with it, but at least it will be fun watching Sterle carve into Shane Comedy.
Reply

Hemophobia – And the political backbone.

6G McCormack -  (Back-flip specialist) “The intent of this policy around community service flights by CASA is to ensure that a suitable level of aviation safety is maintained for regional and rural Australians who need to use these important resources to seek medical assistance away from their home,” he said. I say - BOLLOCKS.

The whole thing is disgusting; RESIGN minister, save what little internal integrity and self respect you have for the day when you understand what it is to be a ‘grown man’ with responsibilities. Having sold your soul once – you need to find a way to break the deal you made with the Devil. The Styx River ferry awaits your arrival with the patience borne of long practice; don’t forget the two bob – we still charge full rates. De-luxe service 24/7, you bet.

Toot - toot..............

P7 - (beg pardon) “[The] intent of this policy around community service flights by CASA. etc. Uhm - CASA do not conduct community flights - do they?
Reply

Pick me pick me!!!

Please Capt Kharon, may I crank up the Ferryboat’s engines? I’ve spent the past 12 months preparing the onboard lodgings for guests Mc’Do’Nothing and Wingnut. The engines are tuned, ADSB installed, compliance checks completed and the calm waters of the Styx River are begging us to take her for a spin. Please please please....

TOOT TOOT.... DESTINATION CAN’TBERRA
Reply

Angel Flight embuggerance update Confused

Via AOPA Oz FB page: https://www.facebook.com/AOPAaustralia/?epa=SEARCH_BOX

Quote:[Image: 51854166_1475685822562338_28895512138864...e=5CB53788]

CASA MOVES ON ANGEL FLIGHTS

The Australian, Robyn Ironside – Friday 8th February 2019

Changes to community service flights by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority are expected to be made as early as next week, barely a fortnight after the period for submissions closed.

The Australian understands widespread anger in regional and rural communities about the changes, has prompted CASA Chief Executive Shane Carmody to move quickly.

All but one of the changes, relating to aircraft maintenance, are tipped to be part of a new CASA instrument that will be tabled in federal parliament.

National not-for-profit operation Angel Flight has warned the changes could force it to stop helping rural people tavel to non-emergency medical appointments in cities.

Chief Executive Majorie Pagani said the changes would require pilots to meet a higher standard than those already imposed by their CASA licence, in order to help others.

But in an interview with ABC regional radio, CASA Chairman Tony Matthews said two fatal crashes involving Angel Flight gave CASA no choice but to review arrangements.

“We had to go back in as CASA and see what level pilots should be at to be flying passengers around on technically what is not a private flight,” Mr Matthews said.

“All the fuel is paid for, so we’re just looking at what level of safety that is suitable for what they’re actually doing.”

A minimum level of flying experience would also be imposed, to ensure a “level of performance from the pilots that’s commensurate with what they’re doing”.

“To some extent these flights put a little bit of pressure on you, in that you need to get people to their appointment or get them home. That puts pressure on the pilot,” said Mr Matthews.

Ms Pagani said she would be surprised if CASA had even read all the 160 submissions made to the authority in response to the proposed changes.

Some comments so far on AOPA Oz FB page... Shy

Quote:Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association Australia CASA's public statements serve to demonstrate a vast inconsistency with respect to their core argument for implementing changes and leaves more questions than answers with respect to their thinking and direction.

Hedley Harding And how many commercial charter flights have had fatal accidents in the past 10 years Tony MATTHEWS are you going to impose more regulatory measures on charter operators to. 

Over regulation is killing private charter operators already,, now CASA wants charter operators to employ a safety audit officer to oversee the charter business which will cost thousands.

CASA needs a kick in butt.




Michael Henderson CASA is out of control. There needs to be a Royal Commission into CASA to bring back to earth. They make rules without listening to pilots etc. This just shows they are going to bring in changes without looking at submissions as they had already made their mind up. It is all in the name of safety well why don't they just ground all aircraft including RPT then there will be no accidents. No Pilot will put themselves or others in danger. The two accidents that where just that accidents and it could happen to anyone we're all human except CASA they think are beyond all mistakes, time they had a real good look at themselves. GA is dying because of them.


Steve Fenech This was never about consultation it was about appearing to have consulted prior to enforcing their fascist edicts. Typical CASA SOP.


MTF...P2  Cool
Reply

Tony – seriously?

“But in an interview with ABC regional radio, CASA Chairman Tony Matthews said
"two fatal crashes (in 16 years) involving Angel Flight gave CASA no choice but to review arrangements.”

Mathews is purported to be a ‘thinking’ man, a clever man, one who thoroughly understands the aviation rules. So WTD happened?

How long has it been since a Chairman of the CASA board made even so much as a peep – let alone ‘roar’ (in the main stream media no less) his approval in support of one of the silliest CASA edicts for a long while? Even his public statement lacks any sort of ‘real’ or even necessary change to ‘arrangements’. Read it – HERE - . Read it and weep.

In the face of every statistic available; Angel Flight – not Little Wings – is about to be ‘reviewed’. Why? Howls the IOS crew – why, for pities sake, explain why? They (AF) operate well within their remit (arrangement) ; Oh: they had a prang and they can claim flight fuel expenses from the charity. Heinous crimes indeed.

No doubt, within the pink smoke narcotic fug, fed carefully into Jonathon (where’s my marbles) Aleck's lair, old Tony has been seduced into partaking of a cool, fresh, free glass of the world’s best ‘Kool-Aid’. There is speculation that the invisible, anonymous man from Wagga (Who asks the mob) has called in a favour; or, played the ‘duty’ card – stipend dependency and all that – the iron political fist in the velvet glove, in other words. Shame on you Tony. Gods know (whatsisame) – Oh yes, Boyd, was paralysed by the hoodoo of voodoo (rice bowls to protect etc.) but FCOL – why support this non event?

Ariel Agriculture had X prangs last year.

Transport had several close calls last year – the coal loader at Newcastle; the ATR who’s tail was severely bent by a wannabe child of the magenta line, hell bent of following the flight director. Last year was a horror year for fatal accidents and near fatal accidents;

Parachuting – using paid private pilots had it’s share of ‘incidents’.

Charter operations lost a few – Essendon for instance.

Air show had it’s share of ‘fatal’ –

We lost how many ‘fire fighters’?

We lost how many mustering choppers?

Seaplane operations had a couple of real nasties:-as I recall.

Lot’s and lots of fatal accidents there. Much less than the combined total of road, rail, sea and ‘other’ forms of transport.

What? you going to shut 'em all down too. Bollocks you will, not on an anorexic safety brief you won't.  Wanka. So why has CASA got a hard on for Angel flight? Rather than DFO’s parked on runways? Little to no interest in why, during CASA approved check and training we lost a few good men to the Inutile Man? Why can a child pilot, killed in Tasmania not generate the same amount of ‘tender loving care’ - CASA style.

Why do AF have to bear the brunt of the piss poor ‘safety’ performance due, in a large part, from CASA not being able to tell it’s arse from it’s collective elbow? And yet, here's the Chair of the CASA board (no less)  speaking out on behalf of the most useless, incomprehensible, expensive, DANGEROUS, rule set, writ by the biggest bunch of amateurs, sociopaths and miscreants ever inflicted on an industry which is not thriving – but dying - by the minute.

Now - Bugger off Tony – you've vexed me.

“Yes, yes my dear, rant over, calm restored: I will take a refill before I try to calm the IOS darts team at cobbed throttle.” – "Thank you." (Takes deep breathe and ventures back to chair ‘the meeting'). Think Caligula at the Colosseum with the Christians winning.
Reply

Tom;

“How long has it been since a Chairman of the CASA board made even so much as a peep – let alone ‘roar’ (in the main stream media no less) his approval in support of one of the silliest CASA edicts for a long while? Even his public statement lacks any sort of ‘real’ or even necessary change to ‘arrangements”.

Tom, oh wise one and master of all things aeronautical, this one has flummoxed you Master, but not the Gobbledock, as politics are his specialty! The heat in the Can’tberra kitchen is great. The spineless Miniscule is well and truly on the nose and he only has a few months to go until being not re-elected. The equally spineless Wingnut also is now sitting in a hot kitchen. The plan, put simply, is for Carmody and Mc’Do’nothing to go to ground as this issue may damage the Miniscule even further as they prepare to hit the campaign trail, hence a new face to take all the backlash - the CAsA Board Chair. It’s an old game of deflection. However, many of us can see through this veneer of shit and I would recommend the blowtorch be put to the soles of Carmody and Mc’Do’nothings feet.

Everyone needs to keep publicly outing the Miniscule and Wingnut over the Angel Flight debacle. IT COULD BE YOUR FAMILY WHO ONE DAY REQUIRE THEIR SERVICE.

Angel Flight need the support of industry and the media. This is an outrage. The out-of-touch CAsA CEO, and his advisors along with McCormack need to be shown the door, NOW!!

TICK TOCK
Reply

Is it just me ?

Matthews - “We had to go back in as CASA and see what level pilots should be at to be flying passengers around on technically what is not a private flight,” Mr Matthews said.

All the fuel is paid for, so we’re just looking at what level of safety that is suitable for what they’re actually doing.”

Bollocks, if the AF pilots paid for their fuel, it would be safer?

Furry Muff – but for whom? The insurance company, Carmody, the miniscule – who. If the ‘technical details’ of fuel cost being refunded is a ‘problem’, why not simply amend the rules to allow for ‘charity fuel’ costs to be reimbursed – provided the flight actually qualifies as a ‘charity’ flight.

This all leads back to the reluctance of CASA to address the  ‘operational classification’  horror. The endless wrangles over ‘scheduled’ services v multiple ‘charter tours’ for e.g. has never been properly addressed, many a battle fought over that and similar messes. Same-same in the AF situation – ‘technically’ not a private flight – by CASA’s cock-eyed definitions. Does AF affect the local charter operators business? No it does not; the folk who travel by AF could no more afford to charter an aircraft than they could fly to the moon. That is why the charity services are essential; unless the RFDS in a fit of uncontrollable largess could squeeze these folk onto one of their services from bush to big town; Ah, but then getting them back home would be ‘problematic’.

Perhaps it is time for a few of our Senators to ‘man-up’ weigh in and ‘disallow’ the latest back door attempt to disable Angel Flight. This is a five year battle and no one can really understand why CASA have a hard on for Angel Flight; particularly on a very, very slim safety case. I, for one would like to hear it fully explained, under oath at a Senate Q&A session.

CASA have almost untrammelled power, they can, for once, earn their money. Hell they could even honour the ‘arrangements’ made with AF instead of sneaking around the back alleys and dark doorways of the law. It is way past the time when CASA needs to be, very firmly, put back in their box, bottoms smacked and their wings clipped.

Disgraceful behaviour, supported by a minister and the CASA Chairman. Shame on them. We can only hope that the white hat Senators will step up and do the right, Australian thing.

Toot – toot.
Reply

From AOPA's Facebook page..

Quote: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

Reply

Via the ABC News yesterday: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-02-13/s...e/10799654


Safety standards for community service flights to increase affecting more than 3,000 volunteer pilots


ABC Capricornia
By Jemima Burt
Wed 13 Feb 2019, 9:03am

[Image: 10800436-3x2-700x467.jpg] 

Photo: Robert and Rosemary Johnson use Angel Flight, saving them from a 12-hour road trip. (ABC News: Nathan Morris)

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) will today announce a suite of new minimum safety standards for pilots who take community service flights (CSF).

Key points
  • Several changes will come into effect on March 19 but must also follow an approval process through both houses of Federal Parliament
  • More than 3,000 Angel Flight pilots will be most affected by the reforms
  • CASA says upgraded safety regulations for volunteer pilots are long overdue
Changes include the introduction of minimum licensing and safety standards plus more stringent medical requirements for pilots.

Pilots, many of who are volunteers, say this would exclude many of them from providing the service which would leave rural and regional patients in the lurch.

CASA said the reforms, which will come into effect March 19, were overdue.

"It's very important that the pilots who do these community service flights have a bit more experience than just your basic pilot who has just come out of training," said CASA spokesman Peter Gibson.

Quote:"They're not really appropriate flights for rookies to do."

One of the organisations affected is Angel Flight, which provides free transport for rural and regional medical patients to non-urgent appointments.

The charity's CEO Marjorie Pagani said the changes were extreme and would affect thousands of volunteers and patients.

"We have over 3,000 pilots and most of the changes will affect each and every pilot — whether they're airline, commercial or whether they're private pilots," she said.

Calls for change following six deaths

CASA said the impetus for reform came after two Angel Flight crashes in southern Australia, the first in 2011 and the second in 2017.

Investigations found the first crash in Victoria, which killed two passengers and the pilot, was caused by low cloud, rain and fading light which made the pilot disorientated and lose control.

The ATSB is yet to release the final report for the second, which happened near Mount Gambier in South Australia.

After the second crash, there were calls for CASA to improve safety standards.

[Image: 10799670-3x2-700x467.jpg]

Photo: In 2017, three people were killed near Mount Gambier, South Australia in the second fatal Angel Flight crash in less than eight years. (ABC News )

Peter Gibson said CASA "determined that some slightly higher minimum safety standards were appropriate".

"It's not just jumping in your plane on the weekend. It's an important flight getting sick people to important medical appointments from remote places," Mr Gibson said.

Presently, CSF safety standards are similar to those which apply to private flights.

Late last year, consultation with industry and the public took place, which closed at the end of January.

The original proposal for new safety standards included:
  • requirements for pilots to have taken off and landed in the same type or class of plane within 30 days;
  • for private license holders to have had a minimum of 400 hours flight time;
  • an increase in the level of maintenance needed for private planes to meet commercial flight standards.
CASA received 230 responses, Angel Flight and the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association among them.

CASA says all proposed changes, except the more stringent mechanical standards, will be signed off on today.

Association say changes 'thoroughly unnecessary'

Ben Morgan, the executive director of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association said the association "entirely rejects the changes" and described them as "thoroughly unnecessary".

"Now what we understand in aviation, and this is a well-known global principle, that if you're going to look at improving aviation safety we take recommended changes and we overlay them against any accidents or fatalities that may have occurred," Mr Morgan said.

"In this particular instance, if we take CASA's changes and we overlay them against historical accidents, what we see is that none of the changes that CASA are proposing would have prevented those fatalities."

But CASA's Peter Gibson said the changes were part of a bigger picture.

Quote:"It's about making sure you've got more experienced pilots doing community service flights," he said.

"What we did is look at ways of achieving that.

"We've done that through setting some minimum experience levels.

"We think that's appropriate because if you look at the accidents that have happened, there were clearly some judgements made by those pilots which were incorrect.


"Only a small number of pilots that conduct community service flights will be affected by the changes and will need to get more experience before they continue."

Volunteers not flying regularly enough to keep up

But for Rockhampton surveyor Neil Richardson, it is not the minimum hours which is of concern, it is the new condition to have flown within a month which will likely exclude him from volunteering.

Mr Richardson has been volunteering as an Angel Flight pilot for more than 12 years.

He owns a plane for his work, but said he does not have time to fly every 30 days as stipulated in the new regulations.

Quote:"If I got a call tomorrow I'd have to decline," he said.

"I'm safe enough, according to CASA's regulations, to fly myself and anybody right around Australia — into Sydney International Airport — that's all fine.

"But I can't take a poor person needing some medical treatment from, say, Theodore to Rockhampton.

"That's the crazy part."

[Image: 10799710-3x2-700x467.jpg]

Photo: Rockhampton surveyor Neil Richardson has volunteered as an Angel Flight pilot for more than a decade but says he won't be able to fly under new restrictions. (ABC News: Jemima Burt )

Angel Flight is concerned many of their pilots will be affected in a similar way, over the same new "recency" rule
"For the younger people — the flight instructors and the commercial pilots coming through — they will have to go and hire an aircraft every 30 days and do a take-off and landing in that type of aircraft," said Angel Flight CEO Marjorie Pagani.

Quote:"This is unheard of around the rest of the world.

She said over its time, Angel Flight had helped more than 100,000 people on about 46,000 flights.
But she said the charity's name had been tarnished by two fatal accidents.

"They were both weather related accidents," she said.

"The ATSB hasn't released a report in terms of the last one but they both involved weather … cloud.

"Not one of these reforms relates with anything to do with those accidents."

Flights save 14-hour road trip for rural couple

For people like Rosemary and Robert Johnson, Angel Flight is a lifeline.

Bob, a cancer patient in remission, needs regular flights to Toowoomba for chemotherapy to stave off the disease.

The septuagenarian graziers live an hour outside Injune in Central Queensland — a 14-hour round trip if they were to drive to his oncology appointments.

Mrs Johnson said when the couple started using Angel Flight two years ago it changed her life.

"For me it took away a heap of stress because I had to do the driving … and from home, with the roads that we've got, it's probably seven hours to here.

"It just saved all of that."

No commercial flights land in Injune and there is no bus either.

They say the service also helps them by keeping them away from their business for shorter periods of time.

Disallowance still possible in Federal Parliament

Today's announcement is not a change of regulation.

CASA said it was a "licence condition" of the sort for pilots volunteering to fly medical patients.

The changes will come into effect on March 19 but must also follow an approval process through both houses of Federal Parliament.

If any MP raises a motion of disallowance against it, a debate and vote will be brought on which would decide whether the new conditions would continue.

So far, Queensland MPs Bob Katter and Lachlan Millar have voiced their concerns over the new standards.


Reply

Highlights and low life’s.

From a Lowlife -HERE – a sworn Casasexual, acknowledged as a barely competent, part time ‘aviatrix’, one definitely not 'the guru’ of aviation safety, butts in at about the halfway mark. O’course by then; no one was listening to the weighted piffle: the aviation rumor mill had done it’s work – very well indeed….

Ley - “Their (CASA) preferred option—an approved self-administering aviation organisation—would allow this sector to regulate itself. Changes must be made, and I do believe a way forward can be found so that our volunteer pilots can continue to help support country people’s access to medical services.”


Now, if CASA want to be rid of the responsibility – at ministerial pleading – why didn’t they, back in 2011; 2012; 2013 or even 2014, knit up an agreement, progressive if they liked, for AF to become self regulating? Same as War Birds, same as Aerial Agriculture, etc; same-same as the many other organisations which have taken over the regulatory administration role: hell’s bells it is neither a new nor an untried concept. The notion seems to work just fine – the gliding fraternity have been doing a superb job for donkey’s years. So why the shilly-shally? Tell AF to get weaving and become self regulating or, they’d have to cease operations. Big stick – small carrot. Too easy. I’d bet a Choc frog AF could sort out the ‘nut’s and bolt’s’ in short order.

But why, must we have a creature like Ley running interference for CASA? Whichever way they jumped, they were heading into choppy PR seas; which they could have ridden out, citing (big stick) a complex legal case (self generated, by the way) and onerous restrictions; or, self regulation assisted to fruition by a helpful Authority. No brainer.

The ‘self regulation’ case makes good sense; so why bother with the pony-pooh and bad PR. This useless article called ‘minister’ is a rural based vote count; who are the most affected? Rural folk perhaps, the very few remaing paid up members of the Nats; who are currently haemorrhaging members (and their funds along with their votes). Numbers matter in an election, particularly decreasing numbers – QED.

CASA need to stop pissing about, sit up and fly straight. Would I support ‘self regulation’ for AF; damn right I would. Why? Well the regulations are such a screaming bollocks up; it would be much more ‘legally’ safe to be a self regulating body. That’s why – well, plus it makes good sense – for everyone.  Olive branch may work, worth a shot at least.

Over it – the DFO’s are running at 50% the AF crash rate but equal in body count? Are we to expect a five year push to have them ‘self regulate’ their buildings? Whoops. Sorry; yes, I forgot, they already have that don’t they.

Toot – all Bollocks – toot.
Reply

Who is Sussan Ley??

Well, as with all politicians, she ain’t anything special. Her primary skills are a love of the taxpayer purse from which she has certainly made robust use and enjoyed a well paid political career. She is also a good bullshit artist and in many ways a bit of a weird one. To rise through the National party ranks she has cashed in on two key selection criteria’s;

a) she worked on a farm. (Big deal, that doesn’t automatically mean you understand the Bush). And;
b) she has a vagina. (Today, it’s women and LGBT first. If you want to be in a position of power all you need is a vagina. The world for heterosexual males is long gone)

Why is she a CAsAsexual? This one is a bit weird but when she was 19 she enrolled in flight school and gained her commercial pilot's licence when she was 20. She reportedly trained, but did not complete the training, as an air traffic controller. She has done a number of other tidbit jobs including plenty of studies and a degree in taxation. Whoopy doo. It still doesn’t explain her allegiance to CAsA, but I’m guessing that like many other aspects of her career she got started but couldn’t complete it. She probably failed as a pilot (her own fault) and therefore in a bitter and twisted state she has become an honorary Fort Fumble fan.

Naturally, as a politician, she sucked the taxpayer trough dry. In 2017, she resigned from the frontbench in the midst of an investigation into her travel expenses and entitlements. Some will remember her rorting flights to the Gold Coast, on the backs of the taxpayer of course, to conduct personal business and buy investment properties. Oink oink.

Another interesting piece of information, she changed her name from Susan to Sussan due to a belief in numerology! So one can surmise that she and Dr Aleck would get along quite well, all of this hocus pocus pony Pooh stuff. Either that or she is a complete fruitcake.

So, Sussan Ley, your opinions on Angel Flight should be discarded. Your recent decades spent as a Politician and property investor mean you know jack shit about the current aviation issues affecting our industry. You just stick to the Chairman’s Lounge and business seats on your Can’tberra flights sweetheart. In other words, f...k off.

Here is SuSSan and friends at the taxpayer trough;



Oink oink
Reply

Much a'do.

The 'instrument which has everyone's panties in a bunch is - HERE -. Fairly straightforward - for a CASA effort - and no too much to make a fuss about. There are somel howlers in the wording, but that is semantics and grammar at risk, nothing that a half decent barrister could not tear apart to score some points. I can't see anything to onerous in the instrument - stand alone. The real anger should be directed at the methodology used to produce the 'instrument' and the motivation for doing so. Operationally, there will little or no impact on AF work, so why bother with a five year program, at great expense, to produce a thing which, in reality, will not improve the AF safety record one iota. So why and what for? Cui Bono? It has certainly provided a distraction, diverting attention away from some pretty hefty 'safety matters'. No matter, Aunt Pru has not forgotten about those.

Maybe it has to do with the seriously big changes made to the recording of the flight. When you submit an Angel Flight operation plan - you must- include  the acronym CSF in the flight notification (remarks section) and in your log book, when you are done as a CSF flight. I can see great leaps toward ultimate safety through this wise, considered, imperative process. Can't you?   I wonder what that little gem cost - in real time and real money? Heigh - Ho:

10. c   the holder submits a flight notification (within the meaning given by the AIP) to Airservices Australia that: 

           (i)  identifies the flight as a community service flight using the acronym “CSF”; and

           (ii)  is either “full flight details” or “SARTIME”; and
 
(d)  the holder, in addition to the requirements in regulation 61.350 of CASR to record information about flights in a personal logbook, records that the flight is a community service flight in the logbook.
 
Note   For paragraph c, the flight can be identified by entering the acronym in the “remarks” section of the flight notification: see AIP ENR 1.10.

LOL Big Grin --Pompous, pedantic, pointless, pathetic - need I go on?.-------------------------

4          Application

                This instrument applies in relation to a flight in an aircraft conducted as a private operation.

5          Conditions on flight crew licences for community service flights

                For the purposes of regulation 11.068 of CASR, this instrument imposes conditions on flight crew licences.

Note   See Part 1 of the Dictionary to CASR for the definition of flight crew licence.

6          Community service flights

       (1)     A flight is a community service flight if it meets the description in subsections (2) to (5).

       (2)     The flight involves:

(a)   the transport of one or more individuals (a patient) to a destination for the purpose of each such individual receiving non-emergency medical treatment or services at the destination; or

(b)   the transport of a patient from a destination mentioned in paragraph (a) (the treatment destination) to another treatment destination; or

©   the transport of a patient from a treatment destination:

            (i)  back to a place from which the patient departed for a treatment destination; or

           (ii)  to a destination at which the patient resides.

       (3)     The flight is provided to a patient, and any person who accompanies the patient to provide support and assistance, without a charge being made to any of those persons for their carriage.

       (4)     Medical treatment is not provided on board the aircraft for the flight, other than the administering of medication or in response to an unexpected medical emergency.

       (5)     The flight is coordinated, arranged or facilitated by an entity for a charitable purpose or community service purpose.

Note   Section 2B of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 defines charitable purpose as having the meaning given by Part 3 of the Charities Act 2013.

7          General requirements

       (1)     It is a condition on a flight crew licence that its holder must not operate an aircraft for a community service flight unless:

(a)   the licence is a private pilot licence, commercial pilot licence or air transport pilot licence; and

(b)   the flight is conducted in an aeroplane; and

©   the aeroplane does not carry on board any persons other than:

            (i)  a patient mentioned in paragraph 6 (2) (a), and any other passenger who accompanies a patient to provide support and assistance; and

           (ii)  the operating crew; and

(d)   the holder holds a current class 1 or 2 medical certificate.

Note   Subpart 67.C of CASR provides for the requirements relating to medical certificates.

       (2)     To avoid doubt, the provisions of CASA EX65/18 — Private Pilot Licence Medical Certification (Basic Class 2 Medical Certificate) Exemption 2018 do not apply to the holder of a flight crew licence who operates an aeroplane for a community service flight.

Note   An Aviation Medical Certificate (Basic Class 2) issued by CASA under CASA EX65/18 — Private Pilot Licence Medical Certification (Basic Class 2 Medical Certificate) Exemption 2018 is not a class 1 or class 2 medical certificate.

8          Excluded aeroplanes

       (1)     It is a condition on a flight crew licence that its holder must not pilot an aeroplane operated for a community service flight if the aeroplane is excluded under subsection (2).

       (2)     For subsection (1), an aeroplane is excluded if:

(a)   the aeroplane is:

            (i)  an amateur-built aircraft accepted under an Amateur Built Aircraft Acceptance; or

           (ii)  an aircraft in the limited category; or

(b)   there is an experimental certificate in force for the aeroplane; or

©   the aeroplane is not registered.

9          Aeronautical experience requirements

General requirements

       (1)     It is a condition on a flight crew licence that its holder must not pilot an aeroplane operated for a community service flight unless the holder has aeronautical experience that includes:

(a)   a landing, within the previous 30 days, in:

            (i)  if the community service flight is conducted in an aeroplane that is class rated — an aeroplane of that class; or

           (ii)  if the community service flight is conducted in an aeroplane that is type rated — that type of aeroplane; and

(b)   for a flight that is conducted under the V.F.R. — at least 10 hours of flight time in an aeroplane of the same type as the aeroplane used for the community service flight; and

©   for a flight that is conducted under the I.F.R. — at least 20 hours of flight time in an aeroplane of the same type as the aeroplane used for the community service flight; and

(d)   for a flight that is conducted in a multi-engine aeroplane — at least 25 hours of flight time as pilot in command of a multi-engine aeroplane.

Note   See Part 1 of the Dictionary to CASR for the definition of type.

Additional requirements for private pilots

       (2)     Subsection (3) applies if the holder of a private pilot licence does not also hold a commercial pilot licence or an air transport pilot licence.

       (3)     It is a condition on the private pilot licence that its holder must not pilot an aeroplane operated for a community service flight unless the holder has aeronautical experience that includes:

(a)   at least 400 hours of flight time conducted in an aeroplane or a helicopter; and

(b)   at least 250 hours of flight time as pilot in command of an aeroplane or a helicopter.

Note 1   The term pilot, used as a verb, has the meaning given by regulation 61.010 of CASR.

Note 2   For the meaning of flight time as a pilot in command: see regulation 61.090 of CASR.

10        Operational and notification requirements

                It is a condition on a flight crew licence that its holder must not pilot an aeroplane operated for a community service flight unless:

(a)   the aeroplane carries no more than 5 passengers (including any patient mentioned in paragraph 6 (2) (a)); and

(b)   the aeroplane is not operated under the V.F.R. at night; and

©   the holder submits a flight notification (within the meaning given by the AIP) to Airservices Australia that:

            (i)  identifies the flight as a community service flight using the acronym “CSF”; and

           (ii)  is either “full flight details” or “SARTIME”; and

(d)  the holder, in addition to the requirements in regulation 61.350 of CASR to record information about flights in a personal logbook, records that the flight is a community service flight in the logbook.

Note   For paragraph ©, the flight can be identified by entering the acronym in the “remarks” section of the flight notification: see AIP ENR 1.10.

11        Aeroplane maintenance requirements

       (1)     Subsection (2) applies if there is an election in force under regulation 42B of CAR for an aeroplane to use the CASA maintenance schedule for the aircraft’s maintenance.

       (2)     It is a condition on a flight crew licence that its holder must not pilot the aeroplane for a community service flight unless:

(a)   the aeroplane has undergone a periodic inspection:

            (i)  within the last 100 hours of service of the aeroplane; or

           (ii)  if the aeroplane has been in service for less than 100 hours in the immediately preceding 12 months — within the 12 months; or

(b)   both of the following apply:

            (i)  the aeroplane was issued its current certificate of airworthiness less than 12 months before the flight;

           (ii)  the aeroplane has been in service for less than 100 hours since the certificate was issued.
Reply

I can't help wondering how CAsA proposes to police this new regulation that's not really a regulation or is it?
Looks and reads like something some twat though up on the fly.
I agree with you K, as it does nothing to address Safety in any practical sense, given Wingnuts pathological frenzy to get it on the books, the unconscionable and devious manner in which it was done and breaking rule 101, severely embarrassing his minister, it could very well have been done to create a smoke screen, to distract attention.
Rumour is rife that bewigged folk are afoot, dollar signs in their eyes, and one target in mind.

Meanwhile, out at kickatinalong, Molly Maggot rings Billy Blowfly who owns an aircraft and asks him if he could fly her and her daughter to the big smoke. She needs to buy new school uniforms unavailable in Kickatinalong. Would this be a community service flight?

While in the big smoke Molly takes her daughter to a clinic for medical treatment. Has Billy now inadvertently committed an offence punishable by castration with severe prejudice?

Or

During the phone call Molly tells Billy she will be taking her daughter to the doctor in the big smoke and Billy tells her "aww Gee Molly can't take you in the aircraft its against the law if you visit a doctor, but I'll drive you the 15 hours no worries".

Billy inadvertently falls asleep at the wheel on the way and gets wiped out by a road train killing them all.

Would these fatalities be added to CAsA's statistics? Okay silly question.

But

34,000 Angel Flight missions a year in the USA.
12,500 Angel Flight missions a year in Canada.

and consider

The previous DAS who WAS a pilot with some aeronautical experience looked at regulating Angel Flight and declined to act.

Carmody with absolutely NO aviation experience at all decides it will rain aluminium if he doesn't act without a shred of evidence of a problem that needed fixing. He blackens the name of private pilots and the GA industry by inferring we are a bunch of homicidal lunatics out to slaughter anyone we come in contact with, creating in the publics eye GA is on a Par with ISIS.
Reply

Thorny,

What if Molly snaps a few pics out of the aircraft window and uploads them to social media? Is that ‘photography’ and does she require an additional aviation lisence? I mean, heaven forbid if her school bought the pics for $20 off her, Dr Voodoo would bring the full fury of the law against her!
Reply

All pretty inane Gobbles
Reply

And - From the Funny Coincidence department.

“Ting” – the little chime on my phone spoke it’s sinister word. Bloody message, thought I, hope they don’t want a response. Being a self confessed I-Pad Philistine, I dread text messages – it takes me ages to ‘tap’ one out – one finger with much cussin’ and fussin’; usually ending with ‘bugger it – I’ll call ‘em'. Anyway, it was a strange number – unknown to me (or the phone). Flick – probably someone wanting to flog me sake oil or, insurance against snake oil poisoning. A minute later – ‘Ting’ same deal – Flick. A little while later ‘Ting’ by now I’m cranky. Someone is going to get an ear full. Before I offer my opinion on present worth and future value – I open the message – “See picture” was the only missive. Ok – so I looked. It was a photograph of a submission related to non other than the currently seriously hacked off Angel Flight bun fight. So I read it.

I am not going to reproduce the thing here – can’t even find out from whom it came. It was a slightly hysterical, uninformed ‘opinion’ of what, exactly was wrong with AF and how to best fix it all up – better. Yeah, yeah thought I – must be a legion of that ilk out there – entitled to an opinion and to voice it – no problem to me. Democracy at work – Bravo. I was about to close the thing and delete it (with malice aforethought) when I realized there was a second page, very official looking.

Proposed safety standard – Community service flights.  (CD 1814OS).
Response 842062909. 2/15/2019.

Cursed curiosity bump got busy – so I managed to ‘scroll’ down to the gubbins.

“Last name (required)" quoth the document. There, neatly typed in was the name ‘Henwood’. An old Cornish name, something to do with wild birds and woodlands – but, I digress.  

Not a lot of the ‘Henwood clan’ in Australia, even fewer in aviation circles; fewer again in the list of qualified aviators. There is however a Henwood employed by the ATSB. We must all hope that the ATSB Henwood  (lead investigator) into the Mt Gambier AF accident; is not the writer of the submission. (If she did indeed provide a submission).  For many reasons, as it should cause a minor furore; the Australian paints a picture – HERE. But if (Big IF) the unqualified ‘Henwood’ was ‘lead investigator’ and the writer of the ‘response’ I imagine the very least that would happen would be a call to strike out the cosy MoU between CASA and Hood’s version of the ATSB. CASA could wind up deep in the snake pit – if they have used this one submission – pre-emptively – in their haste to clip the wings of Angel Flight. At very least, someone could do a bit of digging and find out just exactly how aeronautically and investigatively qualified Henwood is, to be ‘Senior Investigator’. Not too much info on the ATSB site.

Can’t see it being ‘real’ myself – probably someone taking the Mickey; so, FWIW – that’s my tale for today. Believe it if you like.

Laura Henwood is an ATSB Recorder Specialist, working mostly in the rail and marine sectors.

Recorders may have been damaged in an accident or incident so special precautions are used to ensure they make it back to the laboratory without losing any data.

In the lab, the information is retrieved and provided to the investigating team. A range of inputs along with images and video can be used to build a picture of the circumstances leading up to an accident or incident.

https://www.facebook.com/atsbgovau/posts...373971852/

Toot – toot.
Reply

(Yesterday, 08:39 PM)Kharon Wrote:  And - From the Funny Coincidence department.

“Ting” – the little chime on my phone spoke it’s sinister word. Bloody message, thought I, hope they don’t want a response. Being a self confessed I-Pad Philistine, I dread text messages – it takes me ages to ‘tap’ one out – one finger with much cussin’ and fussin’; usually ending with ‘bugger it – I’ll call ‘em'. Anyway, it was a strange number – unknown to me (or the phone). Flick – probably someone wanting to flog me sake oil or, insurance against snake oil poisoning. A minute later – ‘Ting’ same deal – Flick. A little while later ‘Ting’ by now I’m cranky. Someone is going to get an ear full. Before I offer my opinion on present worth and future value – I open the message – “See picture” was the only missive. Ok – so I looked. It was a photograph of a submission related to non other than the currently seriously hacked off Angel Flight bun fight. So I read it.

I am not going to reproduce the thing here – can’t even find out from whom it came. It was a slightly hysterical, uninformed ‘opinion’ of what, exactly was wrong with AF and how to best fix it all up – better. Yeah, yeah thought I – must be a legion of that ilk out there – entitled to an opinion and to voice it – no problem to me. Democracy at work – Bravo. I was about to close the thing and delete it (with malice aforethought) when I realized there was a second page, very official looking.

Proposed safety standard – Community service flights.  (CD 1814OS).
Response 842062909. 2/15/2019.

Cursed curiosity bump got busy – so I managed to ‘scroll’ down to the gubbins.

“Last name (required)" quoth the document. There, neatly typed in was the name ‘Henwood’. An old Cornish name, something to do with wild birds and woodlands – but, I digress.  

Not a lot of the ‘Henwood clan’ in Australia, even fewer in aviation circles; fewer again in the list of qualified aviators. There is however a Henwood employed by the ATSB. We must all hope that the ATSB Henwood  (lead investigator) into the Mt Gambier AF accident; is not the writer of the submission. (If she did indeed provide a submission).  For many reasons, as it should cause a minor furore; the Australian paints a picture – HERE. But if (Big IF) the unqualified ‘Henwood’ was ‘lead investigator’ and the writer of the ‘response’ I imagine the very least that would happen would be a call to strike out the cosy MoU between CASA and Hood’s version of the ATSB. CASA could wind up deep in the snake pit – if they have used this one submission – pre-emptively – in their haste to clip the wings of Angel Flight. At very least, someone could do a bit of digging and find out just exactly how aeronautically and investigatively qualified Henwood is, to be ‘Senior Investigator’. Not too much info on the ATSB site.

Can’t see it being ‘real’ myself – probably someone taking the Mickey; so, FWIW – that’s my tale for today. Believe it if you like.

Laura Henwood is an ATSB Recorder Specialist, working mostly in the rail and marine sectors.

Recorders may have been damaged in an accident or incident so special precautions are used to ensure they make it back to the laboratory without losing any data.

In the lab, the information is retrieved and provided to the investigating team. A range of inputs along with images and video can be used to build a picture of the circumstances leading up to an accident or incident.

https://www.facebook.com/atsbgovau/posts...373971852/

Toot – toot.

Quote:Media briefing on fatal aviation accident near Mount Gambier, South Australia
 
Date: 29 June 2017

ATSB Investigator Laura Henwood will provide an on-site media briefing at 2 PM (ACST) Thursday, 29 June 2017, at the intersection of Sunnybrae Road and Walker Road, Suttontown, South Australia.
Three people died when a SOCATA TB-10 Tobago aircraft, registered VH-YTM, collided with terrain at 10.30 am on Wednesday 28 June 2017. The accident occurred about 3km south-west of Mount Gambier Airport.
The briefing will outline the known facts of the accident, the investigation team’s on-site activities and the investigation process.
ATSB investigation AO-2017-069
Who:       ATSB Investigator Laura Henwood
Where:    The intersection of Sunnybrae Road and Walker Road, Suttontown, SA.
When:     2 PM ACST, Thursday 29 June 2017
Media contact: 1800 020 616



Quote:I fully support - minimum pilot experience and currency - minimum licensing requirements - minimum Class1 medical - all night flight to be using instrument procedures - aircraft maintenance to charter standards. The general public has not enough knowledge to make the call. The emotions involved lead pilots to make hasty and not always good decisions about their capabilities. I know everyone wants to help and be seen a hero but no-one wants their nearest and dearest to end up in a crumpled heap of metal in cumulogranite. The PATS scheme whilst less glamorous is adequate for most people's transport. A little extra input from doctors into the application assists in ensuring the patient gets transport appropriate to their condition.

https://consultation.casa.gov.au/regulat...=842062909
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)