NPRM Air Service Ops
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: FNQ
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NPRM Air Service Ops
All
CASA are trying to classify all 'charter' ops as air transport. Fine, for real charter, but what about joy flights, fire spotting etc etc etc .....
This in my view would kill small flying schools and aero clubs. They are told 'soon you won't need an AOC for training, but you will for joyflights' give with one hand, take away with the other. Grrr.
Please, go to
www.casa.gov.au/avreg/newrules/arc/nprm0304.htm
and have a read.
I am doing a response for Marjorie Pagani, but I am interested in your views (from any perspective), post them here, pm me, or send to me at
[email protected]
CASA are trying to classify all 'charter' ops as air transport. Fine, for real charter, but what about joy flights, fire spotting etc etc etc .....
This in my view would kill small flying schools and aero clubs. They are told 'soon you won't need an AOC for training, but you will for joyflights' give with one hand, take away with the other. Grrr.
Please, go to
www.casa.gov.au/avreg/newrules/arc/nprm0304.htm
and have a read.
I am doing a response for Marjorie Pagani, but I am interested in your views (from any perspective), post them here, pm me, or send to me at
[email protected]
hey buttercup! who do you represent? Hamilton? whats that make it? a committee of two?
Hamilton represents only himself using AOPA as a vehicle to pat his huge ego.
when he starts communicating with the members and talking to the board and acting as part of a team, it may be different.
he may have a fancy title, but there is no way he represents the greater membership of AOPA.
Hamilton represents only himself using AOPA as a vehicle to pat his huge ego.
when he starts communicating with the members and talking to the board and acting as part of a team, it may be different.
he may have a fancy title, but there is no way he represents the greater membership of AOPA.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: FNQ
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
really
Really, and who authorised Hamilton, is the authorisation on the minutes.
I doubt it.
Why doesn't Pagani know about it.
All I am doing is seeing what the members think, for a change.
Give it a break axiom/hamilton.
AK
I doubt it.
Why doesn't Pagani know about it.
All I am doing is seeing what the members think, for a change.
Give it a break axiom/hamilton.
AK
Snarek, surely Fire spotting will remain Aerial Work?
The issue is what level of protection/safety is the paying customer entitled to. Is a passenger on a sight seeing joy flight over a capital city in a Cessna 172 or DH82 entitled to the same level of "protection" as a passenger on an RPT flight? Given single engine operations?
You could spend days debating this one but I don't think saying
is an argument not to do something about reforming the regulations.
Keep up the good work.
The issue is what level of protection/safety is the paying customer entitled to. Is a passenger on a sight seeing joy flight over a capital city in a Cessna 172 or DH82 entitled to the same level of "protection" as a passenger on an RPT flight? Given single engine operations?
You could spend days debating this one but I don't think saying
This in my view would kill small flying schools and aero clubs
Keep up the good work.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: FNQ
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Icarus
My argument is that the joyflight is an 'experience' thing. like parachuting, or even a bungee jump.
There will be more risk, but so what. There has to be an entry level somewhere.
I am still reading, you could be right about fire spotting.
AK
My argument is that the joyflight is an 'experience' thing. like parachuting, or even a bungee jump.
There will be more risk, but so what. There has to be an entry level somewhere.
I am still reading, you could be right about fire spotting.
AK
Bugsmasherdriverandjediknite
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Bai, mi go long hap na kisim sampla samting.
Posts: 2,849
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why is it then, that carting a box, or even several boxes that are carried for hire or reward and dont belong to the pilot/operator, regarded as charter?. I cant see a box deserving the same risk protection as fare paying pax. (although I know, we all try to give that box the same physical protection).
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Sydney
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi guys
Got a really strange idea. How about we put the personal crap aside and talk about the issue at hand.
Why don't one of smart people put up a poll to ouline the problem. Then we can gather ideas how to solve the problem. Together we choise which method we like the most and we do it.
Got a really strange idea. How about we put the personal crap aside and talk about the issue at hand.
Why don't one of smart people put up a poll to ouline the problem. Then we can gather ideas how to solve the problem. Together we choise which method we like the most and we do it.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: FNQ
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Trouble, as usual, how boring
OK
Seems someone has had a go at marjorie over this. All I can say is that there must be certain people so fond of their own views they don't want to listen to yours
let me clarify.
I spoke to Marjorie about this, she agreed to present my views to Toller et al on the NPRM. I thought that was a bit 'stuck up' of me to just push my views, so I came here to see what you think.
To those that have been helpful, thanks heaps.
To those that value their own opinion above all others, up yours!!!!
I am getting bored with this.
AK
Seems someone has had a go at marjorie over this. All I can say is that there must be certain people so fond of their own views they don't want to listen to yours
let me clarify.
I spoke to Marjorie about this, she agreed to present my views to Toller et al on the NPRM. I thought that was a bit 'stuck up' of me to just push my views, so I came here to see what you think.
To those that have been helpful, thanks heaps.
To those that value their own opinion above all others, up yours!!!!
I am getting bored with this.
AK
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Back again.
Posts: 1,140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've had a quick read of the NPRM and have a couple of questions for those far-more-intelligent-than-me who may be able to provide some answers. I'm going to throw my ignorance out here for everyone to see. This series of questions is probably going to be a tad discombobulated, but here goes...
First, I've been thinking for a while now that the whole issue of RPT certificates/permissions is a restraint of trade and anti-competitive behaviour/route protection in an environment that supposedly encourages open trade with minimal restrictions. Maybe I'm way off base, maybe not, but it is a thought I can't get out of my head. Does the proposed rule change allow or encourage open access to current RPT routes by current charter operations or would-be commercial operators?
Second, can a current charter operation advertise routes and/or flight schedules under the new rules?
Third, will the restrictions on the number of flights operating to and from a particular location be absolved?
If there is no real change to currently protected RPT routes to open them to competition, what is the point of the rule change? Will this rule change encourage the lifting of trade restrictions in other areas?
The reasoning behind my questions is that the whole subject of RPT approvals has been a carry-over from well before the era when I was born. After all, what is really the difference between an RPT operation and a charter operation from a regulatory viewpoint? Why should Qantas, Virgin, or any other RPT operation, big and small, have their domestic routes protected from open competition? (Terminal access does that now quite nicely anyway.) If I can identify a route that say works well on a Thursday at 1pm and Friday at 8am of one week and say a Tuesday at 5pm and Thursday at 11:30am of the next week, and so on, operating say a Cessna Caravan in competition against a Dash on daily, regular runs, why shouldn't I be able to take advantage of this?
As an example of this, have a look at the following operation:
http://www.morrowaircraft.com/
I'm keen to hear any sensible responses.
First, I've been thinking for a while now that the whole issue of RPT certificates/permissions is a restraint of trade and anti-competitive behaviour/route protection in an environment that supposedly encourages open trade with minimal restrictions. Maybe I'm way off base, maybe not, but it is a thought I can't get out of my head. Does the proposed rule change allow or encourage open access to current RPT routes by current charter operations or would-be commercial operators?
Second, can a current charter operation advertise routes and/or flight schedules under the new rules?
Third, will the restrictions on the number of flights operating to and from a particular location be absolved?
If there is no real change to currently protected RPT routes to open them to competition, what is the point of the rule change? Will this rule change encourage the lifting of trade restrictions in other areas?
The reasoning behind my questions is that the whole subject of RPT approvals has been a carry-over from well before the era when I was born. After all, what is really the difference between an RPT operation and a charter operation from a regulatory viewpoint? Why should Qantas, Virgin, or any other RPT operation, big and small, have their domestic routes protected from open competition? (Terminal access does that now quite nicely anyway.) If I can identify a route that say works well on a Thursday at 1pm and Friday at 8am of one week and say a Tuesday at 5pm and Thursday at 11:30am of the next week, and so on, operating say a Cessna Caravan in competition against a Dash on daily, regular runs, why shouldn't I be able to take advantage of this?
As an example of this, have a look at the following operation:
http://www.morrowaircraft.com/
I'm keen to hear any sensible responses.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Moruya NSW Australia
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One small thing that seems to have escaped notice new reg 121B proposes all charter connot be conducted above cloud and requires an IFR or ex IFR pilot, This leaves nothing a basic Commercial pilot can do.
