Of Angels and Daemons.
“Justice Anderson ruled that Angel Flight had not established the grounds on which they applied for the review, rejecting the four grounds of ultra vires submitted, mostly on interpretation of legislative and regulatory instruments that frame CASA's authority.”
“Most telling, Justice Anderson stated that he did not accept Angel Flight's submission that it is necessary for CASA to "demonstrate by some statistical or empirical analysis that a risk factor exists to justify the validity of a condition in an instrument made under [CASR] 11.068."
Pagani - "None of my evidence was challenged at the hearing. On the contrary, the evidence of the CASA representative was telling in that, he admitted only after rigorous cross-examination that he had no such evidence, data, nor safety case, in respect of any of the regulations – not a single one."
Hitch - “The decision also enshrines CASA's inference that a 350-hour PPL must be more dangerous than a 150-hour CPL and, perhaps more damaging, that CASA is under no obligation to justify its decision to apply conditions on a class of operations. There are several operators who have fallen foul of CASA's reluctance to supply meaningful justification for any decision, not just Angel Flight, and now the courts have confirmed what we've always feared: there are no shackles on CASA, a regulator that has a track record of getting things wrong then hiding behind a barricade of legislated authority. It will always be a struggle trying to overcome the barricade, which is what Angel Flight has discovered over the past few years.”
Hitch - Passing comment on the Federal Court ruling against Angel Flight is hampered significantly by the contempt of court laws, but the original regulations and the evidence presented by CASA are still fair game! With Angel Flight electing not to appeal, the resistance to CASA's community service flight restrictions has come to an end.
In February 2019, CASA imposed restrictions on CSFs that target Angel Flight specifically because of the type of mission flown. The restrictions included:
private pilots cannot fly CSFs unless they have 400 hours total time with at least 250 hour in command
multi-engine aircraft cannot be used on CSFs unless the pilot has 25 hours time on type
private pilots cannot fly CSFs if they hold a CASA Basic Class 2 medical only
VFR pilots cannot fly CSFs unless they have 10 hours on type
IFR pilots cannot fly CSFs unless they have 20 hours time on type
no pilot can fly a CSF unless they have made at least one landing in the type of aircraft in the previous 30 days.
So, from a purely 'operational' view it is worth spending some time considering the 'pro's and con's of the CASA v CSF operational arguments.
:- private pilots cannot fly CSFs unless they have 400 hours total time with at least 250 hour in command.
The first thing noted is the 400 hrs total time. This represents (give or take) about a half years work for a new start 'commercial pilot'. During the time it takes to log the first 400 hrs many lessons are learned. For instance the fatigue 'waiting time' produces; the pressure to get the job done and the important lessons related to cross country flying into an unknown aerodrome. Serious lessons which will serve later in a career. Arbitrary 'numbers' serve little purpose – a 'private' pilot may have logged 400 hours and never left the training area; or, has repeated one or two journeys several times; in short, the breadth of experience required to complete a day long journey may never have been acquired. Perhaps a more realistic 'minimum' could have been dictated. For example 250 hours as a minimum with the rider that at least 150 of those hours involved 'cross country' flights. There are some internationally recognised 'tomb-stones' marking the 'danger' periods in a pilots career – one stands at the 500 hour mark. I have no quarrel with CASA setting 'benchmarks' provided they are based on a realistic appreciation of the tasking. This one fails the 'pub test' on operational grounds.
“multi-engine aircraft cannot be used on CSFs unless the pilot has 25 hours time on type”.
Once again we run into an arbitrary number of little significance. Lets say it takes between 5 and 10 hours to master the 'first twin' with the basics and the foundations laid down in a permanent manner. In the class of aircraft available - <5700, piston – the average Joe (or Joette) should need for a 'second twin' about two (min) five (max) hours of training followed up by as much supervised flight as is deemed necessary – 10 hours is a reasonable rule of thumb. So, for our CSF/PPL transitioning from say a Duchess to a Baron – there will have been at least 20 (total) odd hours of multi engine training and 10 hours of supervised flying. Then before being allowed to operate someones 'pride and joy'. You may safely bet that some hard eyes would looking at the performance during a pretty rigorous 'check flight' after that – and carefully checking their insurance policy. 25 hours 'on type' on top of this serves little purpose. This one fails the 'pub test' on operational grounds.
I could go on (and on) – but the bottom line (IMO) is CASA may have won the legal battle and demonstrated their command of the law – as writ. But - from a purely operational standpoint the CSF embuggerance shines a spotlight on just how bereft of 'operational safety savvy' CASA are. In short they have NDI. Big on winning at law - piss poor at understanding matters aeronautical. Etc...
Toot – toot.
“Justice Anderson ruled that Angel Flight had not established the grounds on which they applied for the review, rejecting the four grounds of ultra vires submitted, mostly on interpretation of legislative and regulatory instruments that frame CASA's authority.”
“Most telling, Justice Anderson stated that he did not accept Angel Flight's submission that it is necessary for CASA to "demonstrate by some statistical or empirical analysis that a risk factor exists to justify the validity of a condition in an instrument made under [CASR] 11.068."
Pagani - "None of my evidence was challenged at the hearing. On the contrary, the evidence of the CASA representative was telling in that, he admitted only after rigorous cross-examination that he had no such evidence, data, nor safety case, in respect of any of the regulations – not a single one."
Hitch - “The decision also enshrines CASA's inference that a 350-hour PPL must be more dangerous than a 150-hour CPL and, perhaps more damaging, that CASA is under no obligation to justify its decision to apply conditions on a class of operations. There are several operators who have fallen foul of CASA's reluctance to supply meaningful justification for any decision, not just Angel Flight, and now the courts have confirmed what we've always feared: there are no shackles on CASA, a regulator that has a track record of getting things wrong then hiding behind a barricade of legislated authority. It will always be a struggle trying to overcome the barricade, which is what Angel Flight has discovered over the past few years.”
Hitch - Passing comment on the Federal Court ruling against Angel Flight is hampered significantly by the contempt of court laws, but the original regulations and the evidence presented by CASA are still fair game! With Angel Flight electing not to appeal, the resistance to CASA's community service flight restrictions has come to an end.
In February 2019, CASA imposed restrictions on CSFs that target Angel Flight specifically because of the type of mission flown. The restrictions included:
private pilots cannot fly CSFs unless they have 400 hours total time with at least 250 hour in command
multi-engine aircraft cannot be used on CSFs unless the pilot has 25 hours time on type
private pilots cannot fly CSFs if they hold a CASA Basic Class 2 medical only
VFR pilots cannot fly CSFs unless they have 10 hours on type
IFR pilots cannot fly CSFs unless they have 20 hours time on type
no pilot can fly a CSF unless they have made at least one landing in the type of aircraft in the previous 30 days.
So, from a purely 'operational' view it is worth spending some time considering the 'pro's and con's of the CASA v CSF operational arguments.
:- private pilots cannot fly CSFs unless they have 400 hours total time with at least 250 hour in command.
The first thing noted is the 400 hrs total time. This represents (give or take) about a half years work for a new start 'commercial pilot'. During the time it takes to log the first 400 hrs many lessons are learned. For instance the fatigue 'waiting time' produces; the pressure to get the job done and the important lessons related to cross country flying into an unknown aerodrome. Serious lessons which will serve later in a career. Arbitrary 'numbers' serve little purpose – a 'private' pilot may have logged 400 hours and never left the training area; or, has repeated one or two journeys several times; in short, the breadth of experience required to complete a day long journey may never have been acquired. Perhaps a more realistic 'minimum' could have been dictated. For example 250 hours as a minimum with the rider that at least 150 of those hours involved 'cross country' flights. There are some internationally recognised 'tomb-stones' marking the 'danger' periods in a pilots career – one stands at the 500 hour mark. I have no quarrel with CASA setting 'benchmarks' provided they are based on a realistic appreciation of the tasking. This one fails the 'pub test' on operational grounds.
“multi-engine aircraft cannot be used on CSFs unless the pilot has 25 hours time on type”.
Once again we run into an arbitrary number of little significance. Lets say it takes between 5 and 10 hours to master the 'first twin' with the basics and the foundations laid down in a permanent manner. In the class of aircraft available - <5700, piston – the average Joe (or Joette) should need for a 'second twin' about two (min) five (max) hours of training followed up by as much supervised flight as is deemed necessary – 10 hours is a reasonable rule of thumb. So, for our CSF/PPL transitioning from say a Duchess to a Baron – there will have been at least 20 (total) odd hours of multi engine training and 10 hours of supervised flying. Then before being allowed to operate someones 'pride and joy'. You may safely bet that some hard eyes would looking at the performance during a pretty rigorous 'check flight' after that – and carefully checking their insurance policy. 25 hours 'on type' on top of this serves little purpose. This one fails the 'pub test' on operational grounds.
I could go on (and on) – but the bottom line (IMO) is CASA may have won the legal battle and demonstrated their command of the law – as writ. But - from a purely operational standpoint the CSF embuggerance shines a spotlight on just how bereft of 'operational safety savvy' CASA are. In short they have NDI. Big on winning at law - piss poor at understanding matters aeronautical. Etc...
Toot – toot.