Angel Flights restrictions, things need to change.https://minister.infrastructure.gov.au/brown

[turboplanner]

14 minutes ago, Bruce Tuncks said:

For many years, as a student, I drove an "unroadworthy" car. I never had an accident with them, but I sure was mindful that they would never pass an inspection.

The last was a mark 1 Zephyr. Apart from being full of rust, the wipers didn't work on accelerating or going uphill. You needed to momentarily lift your foot to get the vacuum to work and get a bit of wipe.

What I didn't know was that the rear axle was turning into a crystalline mess at the diff. One day it refused to reverse and I found the splined end to be in a thousand bits.

This is a very complex subject.

Some people can drive an unroadworthy vehicle in some locations for years without injury. I had a car with no brakes; just made sure I never had to stop.

Bob Janes daughter was killed in a car which skidded on bald tyres.

Some people drive cars with rust holes so big you can see from side to side.

In some rollovers the occupants are crushed and killed because of the rust.

Plenty of people have front suspension linkages finally wear through that last little bit, drop the chassis to the ground and slowly skid to a stop.

Others lose a link, whip off the road and all the occupants are killed on a tree.

This sort of amalgum is combined into our road death statistics which show roadworthyness as low on the total scale of causes.

[Ian]

36 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

Read the reports;Read the reports; see just exactly what the pilots did to unsuspecting patients.

Its nonsensical to assume a job normally done by a pilot (a) qualified on operations requiring a safe start and safe end on fixed time departure flights (b) qualified on the aircraft suitable for doing that (c) IFR qualified with currency based on weekly IFR flights, can be copied by an old fart escorting passengers to a base touring aircraft and phoning the patient's sister for Met (not referring to any of the flights).

 

As others have mentioned, these are not medivac flights, but a means of moving people from regional airports to the city or back for free.

This is not a job normally done by a qualified pilot. It's normally done by a family member or some other sap and it's not without risk. A relative died in a car accident on a country highway on her way back from medical treatment in a head on accident. My father had to travel over 5 hours each way to receive treatment for a bone infection for a number of months in Brisbane by car because RPT wasn't available at suitable times. This is common story for people in these areas and any volunteer support to these people is good. He is more than capable of acknowledging the risk that Angel flight wouldn't provide a service as safe as commercial air transport.

 

There's a perception that those running small aviation businesses connected to CASA have an axe to grind and think that Angel Flight is interfering with their revenue stream. The reality is that it is unlikely that Government is going to fork out the requisite funds to improve these health outcomes, at least without something demonstrating the concepts feasibility. There is also leads to a inherent conflict of interest when these parties are involved in the debate. Angel flight has a wide support amongst the RPT transport pilots, no so much with the small aviation operators.

 

If the funding did become available to provide free medical flights as required then the whole reason for the existence of Angel flight would disappear however even in this scenario there would likely still be gaps. I actually think that significantly wider adoption of angel flight could form the basis of wider ranging business case for better public funding in this area.

 

The reality is that there are literally thousands of excess of deaths in regional and rural areas and while increasing the scope of RPT to provide twice daily flights to all these areas back to capital cities would be the best and safest solution it's not likely to happen.

 

To me Angel Flight is an example of "Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good". There is nothing inherently wrong with providing a "free" service to people in need and it's the context of the risk that is important.

[facthunter]

Seriously, why would CASA put itself out on a limb for No likely benefit to their reputation as THE SAFETY AUTHORITY and expose itself to a lot of flak when/If things go pear shaped. Aircraft should be fast to be effective and pressurised unless it carries young and fit people with no Upper respiratory Infection. The pilot can't really attend to the Pax inflight., to any real degree and any weather at all could delay or cause cancellation of the flight and thereby miss the appointment. Up to say 400 Kms  you'd be better to drive by the time you get to and from the plane and to the Hospital. Nev

[walrus]

Nev: 

Quote

Seriously, why would CASA put itself out on a limb for No likely benefit to their reputation as THE SAFETY AUTHORITY and expose itself to a lot of flak when/If things go pear shaped. Aircraft should be fast to be effective and pressurised unless it carries young and fit people with no Upper respiratory Infection. The pilot can't really attend to the Pax inflight., to any real degree and any weather at all could delay or cause cancellation of the flight and thereby miss the appointment. Up to say 400 Kms  you'd be better to drive by the time you get to and from the plane and to the Hospital. Nev

First, the patients in question are as mobile as anyone else in the community; there is no need for “special” aircraft.

 

Second, “400kms” is an 800km round trip. I can tell you that the 300km I have to do is about the limit. That is 3 hours each way. T he fuel cost alone is at least $90.

 

I m lucky to be able to afford it and have the car.

 

I can tell you that rural poverty is a real and invisible problem. There are plenty of people who can’t afford to do “just” 400kms!!!!

 

Third, I spent about $15000 on travel and accommodation during my wife’s surgery and aftercare. A lot of people don’t have that money to spare. There IS a Government subsidy available, but it’s a reimbursement scheme, so it’s useless for the poor, and bloody difficult to access as well. I gave up. on that.

 

The result: read the statistics, people in the country just soldier on and hope the pain or lump will go away, rather that put other people to trouble.

[facthunter]

I'm not trying to give you angst. I just don't think a U/L is suitable. Most of us know that flying a U/L is for when you have time to delay the flight for better conditions and if you Must travel go by road or Airlines too meet scheduled appointments. I've been on RFDS as a Patient but it was a Beech 1900.. I had to transfer to an ambulance at Essendon. Dog knows what it all cost. Your U/L won't run cheaper than most cars.. Nev

[Ian]

19 hours ago, facthunter said:

Seriously, why would CASA put itself out on a limb for No likely benefit to their reputation as THE SAFETY AUTHORITY and expose itself to a lot of flak when/If things go pear shaped.

Because it's a win, both politically and for people in these areas, It is a good thing.

 

Government in Australia is about the delivery of common goods. There is a clear and justifiable common good associated with this activity which is why they should nurture and support it. Their primary consideration should be safety however they should use a risk based approach which incorporates all factors including the fact that regional areas have demonstrably poor health outcomes. I don't think their approach came anywhere close to these goals. As I've stated a risk based approach would be better as well as allowing the consumers of the service to participate in this risk process.

 

I'm aware that there are those in the aviation sector and CASA who think that Angel Flight is a shanker on the prick of aviation, however I think that view is wrong. Volunteer work when properly supported an nurtured can complement and fill areas of need which are difficult to prototype and fill. Often volunteer or charitable services are more efficient mechanisms for delivering services.

 

For example the RFDS was originally a completely charitable organisation without Government support which combined two new technologies to pilot and prototype a new type of service and the Federal Government provides funding of 1B over the next 10 years.

16 minutes ago, facthunter said:

I've been on RFDS as a Patient but it was a Beech 1900.. I had to transfer to an ambulance at Essendon. Dog knows what it all cost. Your U/L won't run cheaper than most cars.. Nev

The whole point isn't about cost, its about access. Angel Flight as a charity covers the cost. The fact that someone is considering using an U/L for a service which people in metro areas take for granted is telling. It's the sheer dislocation associated with the process which is inherently difficult.

 

As I said, rather than wasting time and efforts commenting here reach out to the political elite to make sure that the Government bodies which are meant to support aviation continue to do so.

 

One of the reasons that I think that experimental aircraft should be included in the mix is that based on recent trends these aircraft will eventually dominate the fleet. For Angel Flight to continue to work aircraft need to be available.

[Thruster88]

The data in that graph is flawed. There is currently only about 1500 amateur built aircraft on the VH register, the graph suggests there should be alot more.

[Ian]

It's from the "ATSB TRANSPORT SAFETY REPORT Aviation Research and Analysis Report" in 2007. It just wouldn't be possible for it to be incorrect.

 

I think that both domestically and internationally there has been a trend towards experimental and light sport aircraft at the expense of the commercial GA streams.

This report has some interesting facts. The best selling piston airplane manufacturer shipped 79 aircraft in the quarter. That's ~320 per year for the best seller worldwide.

Quote

market leader Cirrus Aircraft, which posted a more modest gain in total aircraft delivered during the first quarter, with 79

https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2022/may/19/not-all-pistons-remain-popular

 

 

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

Thanks Ian. The fact is that I would like the option of an angel flight and I would be happy to do that at my own risk. The last thing I want is bureaucrats saying that I need to spend millions to "be safe".

[turboplanner]

18 minutes ago, Bruce Tuncks said:

Thanks Ian. The fact is that I would like the option of an angel flight and I would be happy to do that at my own risk. The last thing I want is bureaucrats saying that I need to spend millions to "be safe".

As you know from ths forum over and over and over again, youcannot prescribe any activity where you are owed a duty of care as at your own risk.;

That isn't up for debate, isn't up for evasion and has one very certain ending if something hoes wrong.

[jackc]

The roads of life are paved with flat squirrels that made the wrong decision…….

[Bruce Tuncks]

I reckon with  the parachute tandem jump it could be said that the parachute guy had a duty of care... but this was overturned on appeal. The concept is not so easy as you suggest turbs.

Anyway, this is the first time I have heard that argument and I don't like it at all.

I would like to be able to do anything at my own risk if I so chose. I can ( dimly) see why things you MUST do, like earn a living, need protections built in. But anything you do just for fun and where the risk is completely obvious, like parachute jumping, are quite different.

I can see why the legal profession would not like my idea, after all this must be a big money-earner for them.

[Bruce Tuncks]

My main objection though is that this idea makes things like angel flights unaffordable. This has a flow-on effect of lowering the life expectancy for lots of people.

I really hate how CASA in particular are set up to ignore the bad effects of their policies.

[turboplanner]

44 minutes ago, Bruce Tuncks said:

My main objection though is that this idea makes things like angel flights unaffordable. This has a flow-on effect of lowering the life expectancy for lots of people.

CASA is purely a Safety Authority; they are responsible to manage safety standards, and safety compliance.

44 minutes ago, Bruce Tuncks said:

I really hate how CASA in particular are set up to ignore the bad effects of their policies.

ATSB, a different body, investigated the Angel Flight crashes and issued the reports.

 

If you want to set up Tuncks Free Medical Flights Pty Ltd, you can do that. 

[turboplanner]

55 minutes ago, Bruce Tuncks said:

I reckon with  the parachute tandem jump it could be said that the parachute guy had a duty of care... but this was overturned on appeal. The concept is not so easy as you suggest turbs.

Anyway, this is the first time I have heard that argument and I don't like it at all.

I would like to be able to do anything at my own risk if I so chose. I can ( dimly) see why things you MUST do, like earn a living, need protections built in. But anything you do just for fun and where the risk is completely obvious, like parachute jumping, are quite different.

I can see why the legal profession would not like my idea, after all this must be a big money-earner for them.

You haven't mentioned what parachute jump you are talking about. Each case is taken on its merits and the parties often settle out of Court or one will back down on some issues. 

[Bruce Tuncks]

I think it was about 20 years ago, and it happened in Australia. Somebody got injured on a tandem jump and despite having signed an agreement to not sue, he did just that and won in the first court. The beak said that you can't sign away your rights or something like that.

Anyway, this would have meant the end of glider rides etc, so the GFA levied it's members, I being one, to pay the squillions to appeal. The appeal was won, and an appelate beak said " the risk was apparent and obvious" or something similar.

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

There were 2 such appeals. The second was because somebody did a stall-spin from the top of a winch launch.

The lower-court beak, presumably with some understanding about how a weak cable could cause the load from a crane to fall, mandated very heayy and expensive cables for all wire launches. He obviously thought the glider was being lifted as if the winch was a crane.

 

Don't think that a beak is either smart nor educated in any way. I reckon you need to know all about how he was appointed and by whom.

 

My knowledge of judge appointments I do admit was from Rumpole. You need to suck up to the right people and lose at golf to them.

[Bruce Tuncks]

I tried to look it up turbs, but there are lots of recent cases which prove that my report was correct. The injured passenger does NOT collect.

Maybe the first case was before the internet...

[Bruce Tuncks]

I would like to start the "Rec Flying" school for specialists. My first graduates would be modelled on the Fred Hollows training.

They would be straight "A" kids fresh from high-school. They would spend a year ( or 2 if proven necessary ) on the eye anatomy, infection control in operating, anaesthetics etc.

They would spend more time on these subjects than the standard medical graduate does, and the savings would be in that they would not need to study, say, the bones in the foot.

 They would be true specialists in cataract operations. Fred's lot do these in Ethiopia for $50 and in Australia it costs $5000 at least.

 

[turboplanner]

1 hour ago, Bruce Tuncks said:

I think it was about 20 years ago, and it happened in Australia. Somebody got injured on a tandem jump and despite having signed an agreement to not sue, he did just that and won in the first court. The beak said that you can't sign away your rights or something like that.

Anyway, this would have meant the end of glider rides etc, so the GFA levied it's members, I being one, to pay the squillions to appeal. The appeal was won, and an appelate beak said " the risk was apparent and obvious" or something similar.

 

That's been covered a few times in the Public Liability thread.

There are two parts to it:

(a) The shool doing the tandem jumps has the resonsibility to warn of a higher level of risk.

      He can still be sued if he breaches his duty of care and the customer is injured.

      (in one of the cases where there was a warning placard on the instrument panel, most people missed the point that the judge said the instructor had made a               successful forced landing, so not negligent.)

(b) You can't ask someone not to sue (e.g. go up at his own risk) because he can't sign away that right.

 

Re the appeal being won, In addition to these basics there are subtle differences in every cases, which we non-lawyers wouldn't understand, so not a lot of point drawing conclusions here, but the parachute case may have been similar to the forced landing where the instructor did everything correctly.

[turboplanner]

1 hour ago, Bruce Tuncks said:

There were 2 such appeals. The second was because somebody did a stall-spin from the top of a winch launch.

The lower-court beak, presumably with some understanding about how a weak cable could cause the load from a crane to fall, mandated very heayy and expensive cables for all wire launches. He obviously thought the glider was being lifted as if the winch was a crane.

 

Don't think that a beak is either smart nor educated in any way. I reckon you need to know all about how he was appointed and by whom.

 

My knowledge of judge appointments I do admit was from Rumpole. You need to suck up to the right people and lose at golf to them.

A lot of detail is missing from that story.

We lost a case where a sprintcar flew into the air, hit the catch fence, the cable broke and the car continued into the crowd injuring a child.

 

We had set our fence specifications and cable sizes so that the weight of a sprintcar at race speed couldn't break the cable.

The plaintiff discovered that the cable was fine; but the joints were not to Australian Standard XXXX, which required each cable end to be bent back to form a loop and then clamped to the cable with three opposing clamps, so at the end of every cable length you had a looped end clamped back on itself - a joint which exceeded break stength. Our man on the spot hadn't checked for any standards, just overlaid the two cable lengths to be joined and clamped them with three clamps. When the sprintcar hit the two cables just slid apart.

 

(a) we had failed to comply with a known safety standard so we paide out $5 million.

 

(b if we had clamped the cables to Australian Standard XXXX and the cables had come apart, we at least had a mitigating defence, but most likely the accident would not have happened.

 

 

 

[turboplanner]

1 hour ago, Bruce Tuncks said:

I tried to look it up turbs, but there are lots of recent cases which prove that my report was correct. The injured passenger does NOT collect.

Maybe the first case was before the internet...

If you are not negligent he won't

If you are negligent he will

Spend the money and see a PL lawyer and you'll be sure.

If someone likes flying below 500', beting up towns, beaches, flying in marginal weather, flying aircraft they aren't qualified for, overloading because "everyone else does", not keeping a log on fuel burn etc. then he might be facing a payout sooner or later.