By the numbers.
Can you imagine what would happen if the RTA suddenly placed ‘restrictions’ on the drivers of private vehicles; those who offer a neighbourly lift to the hospital for those less fortunate? I’d say travelling by road is a whole lot more risky than travel by air – statistics (on a pro-rata basis) prove that; beyond any reasonable level of doubt. The longer you are ‘on-the-road’ the higher the percentage chance of an accident.
The numbers do show that there is a high percentage risk of VFR into IFR causing an accident; it happens. The two accident cases cited by Morgan are both ‘classic’ examples. Flights get delayed and weather changes, another fact of life.
AOPA – “None of the changes proposed by CASA appear to be responsive to any relevant safety factors. Rather, they present as a knee-jerk reaction to a perceived requirement for the regulator to be seen to be taking action.”
Spot on – but there are other factors at play – liability, insurance, political fall out, all of which will concern CAsA more than the safety of those who travel by light aircraft. The notion that a sick person being offered a lift to hospital dies in an aircraft accident is highly ‘emotive’ and would provide the hysterical media with a juicy titbit to fill in the gaps between advertorials - for funeral insurance.
AOPA – “In 2017 the AOPA Australia met with Rob Walker, Industry Stakeholder Manager for CASA and extended an offer to help develop and deliver appropriate pilot education and support services for those conducting Community Service Flights focused on decision making in the cockpit. Whilst our offer was not taken up, we remain ready and willing to assist.”
There’s some merit in that notion; a long weekend course on weather flying and some educational material, perhaps some of the stellar articles ATSB used to publish. A package delivered at the local Aero club or Flight school – those that have managed to keep their doors open. I reckon Morgan would have little trouble finding suitably qualified ‘volunteers’ to deliver the package. CASA could take it one step closer – make a sensible ruling; something along the lines of an annual flight check – even a ‘ride-along’ with an instructor on board; line and proficiency check for those who wish to participate in CSF operations. At least that would be ‘constructive’.
The clap trap CASA have proposed fails, dismally, to address the radical causes of the cited accidents, let alone preventing future accidents. The CASA ‘solution’ simply highlights the almost complete disconnection with not only aviation safety across the board; but reflects a complete lack of imagination, intent and knowledge, revealing a total inability to fulfil their claimed major role. That of being ‘the’ Safety regulator.
Can someone please tell me what CASA have provided in 2018 that ‘enhances’ Safety, in quantifiable, risk based terms? No – didn’t think so. What was the total cost of running CASA last year? And, to end the Q&A session did the tax payer get value for money?
Aleck, Crawford and Carmody running aviation – What a crew; the gods must be pissing themselves laughing.
Clinton McKenzie wrote:-
Some very important data that are missing:
How many lives have been saved, extended or improved as a consequence of CSFs? What is the value of that?
How many lives will be lost, lifespans reduced and lifestyles impaired if the number of CSFs is reduced? What is the cost of that?
What’s the delta between the two?
As noted by others, a reduction in the number of CSFs may cause a net negative for society.
Well said that man….
Toot –hear, hear - toot
Can you imagine what would happen if the RTA suddenly placed ‘restrictions’ on the drivers of private vehicles; those who offer a neighbourly lift to the hospital for those less fortunate? I’d say travelling by road is a whole lot more risky than travel by air – statistics (on a pro-rata basis) prove that; beyond any reasonable level of doubt. The longer you are ‘on-the-road’ the higher the percentage chance of an accident.
The numbers do show that there is a high percentage risk of VFR into IFR causing an accident; it happens. The two accident cases cited by Morgan are both ‘classic’ examples. Flights get delayed and weather changes, another fact of life.
AOPA – “None of the changes proposed by CASA appear to be responsive to any relevant safety factors. Rather, they present as a knee-jerk reaction to a perceived requirement for the regulator to be seen to be taking action.”
Spot on – but there are other factors at play – liability, insurance, political fall out, all of which will concern CAsA more than the safety of those who travel by light aircraft. The notion that a sick person being offered a lift to hospital dies in an aircraft accident is highly ‘emotive’ and would provide the hysterical media with a juicy titbit to fill in the gaps between advertorials - for funeral insurance.
AOPA – “In 2017 the AOPA Australia met with Rob Walker, Industry Stakeholder Manager for CASA and extended an offer to help develop and deliver appropriate pilot education and support services for those conducting Community Service Flights focused on decision making in the cockpit. Whilst our offer was not taken up, we remain ready and willing to assist.”
There’s some merit in that notion; a long weekend course on weather flying and some educational material, perhaps some of the stellar articles ATSB used to publish. A package delivered at the local Aero club or Flight school – those that have managed to keep their doors open. I reckon Morgan would have little trouble finding suitably qualified ‘volunteers’ to deliver the package. CASA could take it one step closer – make a sensible ruling; something along the lines of an annual flight check – even a ‘ride-along’ with an instructor on board; line and proficiency check for those who wish to participate in CSF operations. At least that would be ‘constructive’.
The clap trap CASA have proposed fails, dismally, to address the radical causes of the cited accidents, let alone preventing future accidents. The CASA ‘solution’ simply highlights the almost complete disconnection with not only aviation safety across the board; but reflects a complete lack of imagination, intent and knowledge, revealing a total inability to fulfil their claimed major role. That of being ‘the’ Safety regulator.
Can someone please tell me what CASA have provided in 2018 that ‘enhances’ Safety, in quantifiable, risk based terms? No – didn’t think so. What was the total cost of running CASA last year? And, to end the Q&A session did the tax payer get value for money?
Aleck, Crawford and Carmody running aviation – What a crew; the gods must be pissing themselves laughing.
Clinton McKenzie wrote:-
Some very important data that are missing:
How many lives have been saved, extended or improved as a consequence of CSFs? What is the value of that?
How many lives will be lost, lifespans reduced and lifestyles impaired if the number of CSFs is reduced? What is the cost of that?
What’s the delta between the two?
As noted by others, a reduction in the number of CSFs may cause a net negative for society.
Well said that man….
Toot –hear, hear - toot