We were told that the new regs would improve things aviation.
Try this for a Sir Humphrey!!
Quote:
Subpart 11.B Applications for authorisations
11.020 Effect of this Subpart
The requirements of this Subpart in relation to an application for a particular kind of authorisation are in addition to any requirements of the Part or Subpart that deals with the kind of authorisation.
11.025 Application of Part to authorised persons
If these Regulations allow an application for an authorisation to be made to an authorised person, a reference in this Part to CASA includes, in relation to such an application, an authorised person to whom such an application is made.
(1) No pilot or pilots, or person or persons acting on the direction or suggestion or supervision of the pilot or pilots may try, or attempt to try or make or make attempt to try to comprehend or understand any or all in whole or in part of the herein mention Civil Aviation Safety Regulations, except as authorised by the CASA.
Penalty: 50 penalty units.
(2) If the pilot, or group of associated pilots becomes aware of, or realises, or detects, or discovers or finds that he, or she, or they, are or have been beginning to understand the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations, they must immediately, within three (3) days notify CASA in writing.
Penalty: 50 penalty units.
(3) Upon receipt of the above mentioned notice of impending comprehension, CASA will immediately rewrite the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations in such a manner as to eliminate any further comprehension hazards.
(4) CASA may, at their option, require the offending pilot, or pilots, to attend remedial instruction in the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations until such time that the pilot is too confused to be capable of understanding anything.
(5) An offence against subregulation (1) or (2) is an offence of strict liability. Note For strict liability, see section 6.1 of the Criminal Code.
“The pilot in command must ensure all relevant covers and safety flags are removed and stowed before taking off.”
then send it to the legal team, who change it to:
“An individual who, for the purposes of these paragraphs and sub-paragraphs, is authorised by an organisation, or is him or herself empowered to authorise him or herself to operate an aeroplane or rotorcraft as pilot-in-command, shall not allow that aeroplane or rotorcraft to move from a resting condition for the purposes of leaving the ground or water, or in the case of an amphibian aeroplane or rotorcraft, ground and/or water as appropriate, unless that individual has ensured that each item (including but not limited to covers, protective devices, streamers, and flags) made or purchased for the purpose of protecting essential items of equipment (including but not limited to probes, vents, intakes, exhausts, wicks, cooling systems and drains) has been removed from its operative position and placed in a container, locker, pocket or restraint approved for the purpose of holding that item, or group of items, for the duration of the flight and with a degree of security appropriate for the longitudinal, lateral and vertical accelerative forces that may be experienced at any time during that flight, caused by either the normal motion of the aircraft or the motion of the atmosphere as it impacts on that aircraft.”
A good example of how nutty our Aviation regulators are;
Compare our many books of regs and rules to the simple and plain English USA publication – FAR/AIMS.
I’m sure we can all nut out the meaning of regs like this given time, but it must be possible to lay them out in such a way that the meanings are more readily apparent.
Quote:
The requirements of this Subpart in relation to an application for a particular kind of authorisation are in addition to any requirements of the Part or Subpart that deals with the kind of authorisation.
That’s hardly simple English. As I read it, it’s saying “there is (or may be) another Part or Subpart dealing with the kind of authorisation in question, so be aware the requirements in this subpart are not the only ones.”
Something like that that tells you what they’re actually driving at in a straightforward way would help immeasurably.
Maybe we need an official book that tells you in plain language what your responsibilities are, as well as the legalese book that applies in a court of law.
I don’t mean something that a third party such as a flying school or maintenance training organisation writes out as their interpretation of the regs, but something released by CASA that’s aimed to translate the legal stuff into real world language (with the clear caveat that the legal stuff is binding). A kind of ‘what the hell we meant when we wrote this section’ guide.
Last edited by Arm out the window; 17th Jul 2012 at 13:38.
What does ‘cross-country time’ mean for the purpose of meeting the aeronautical experience requirements for a sport pilot certificate with powered parachute privileges?
Your time starts….NOW:
Quote:
(4) Cross-country time means—
(i) Except as provided in paragraphs (b)(4)(ii) through (b)(4)(vi) of this section, time acquired during flight—
(A) Conducted by a person who holds a pilot certificate;
(B) Conducted in an aircraft;
(C) That includes a landing at a point other than the point of departure; and
(D) That involves the use of dead reckoning, pilotage, electronic navigation aids, radio aids, or other navigation systems to navigate to the landing point.
(ii) For the purpose of meeting the aeronautical experience requirements (except for a rotorcraft category rating), for a private pilot certificate (except for a powered parachute category rating), a commercial pilot certificate, or an instrument rating, or for the purpose of exercising recreational pilot privileges (except in a rotorcraft) under §61.101 (c), time acquired during a flight—
(A) Conducted in an appropriate aircraft;
(B) That includes a point of landing that was at least a straight-line distance of more than 50 nautical miles from the original point of departure; and
(C) That involves the use of dead reckoning, pilotage, electronic navigation aids, radio aids, or other navigation systems to navigate to the landing point.
(iii) For the purpose of meeting the aeronautical experience requirements for a sport pilot certificate (except for powered parachute privileges), time acquired during a flight conducted in an appropriate aircraft that—
(A) Includes a point of landing at least a straight line distance of more than 25 nautical miles from the original point of departure; and
(B) Involves, as applicable, the use of dead reckoning; pilotage; electronic navigation aids; radio aids; or other navigation systems to navigate to the landing point.
(iv) For the purpose of meeting the aeronautical experience requirements for a sport pilot certificate with powered parachute privileges or a private pilot certificate with a powered parachute category rating, time acquired during a flight conducted in an appropriate aircraft that—
(A) Includes a point of landing at least a straight line distance of more than 15 nautical miles from the original point of departure; and
(B) Involves, as applicable, the use of dead reckoning; pilotage; electronic navigation aids; radio aids; or other navigation systems to navigate to the landing point.
(v) For the purpose of meeting the aeronautical experience requirements for any pilot certificate with a rotorcraft category rating or an instrument-helicopter rating, or for the purpose of exercising recreational pilot privileges, in a rotorcraft, under §61.101(c), time acquired during a flight—
(A) Conducted in an appropriate aircraft;
(B) That includes a point of landing that was at least a straight-line distance of more than 25 nautical miles from the original point of departure; and
(C) That involves the use of dead reckoning, pilotage, electronic navigation aids, radio aids, or other navigation systems to navigate to the landing point.
(vi) For the purpose of meeting the aeronautical experience requirements for an airline transport pilot certificate (except with a rotorcraft category rating), time acquired during a flight—
(A) Conducted in an appropriate aircraft;
(B) That is at least a straight-line distance of more than 50 nautical miles from the original point of departure; and
(C) That involves the use of dead reckoning, pilotage, electronic navigation aids, radio aids, or other navigation systems.
(vii) For a military pilot who qualifies for a commercial pilot certificate (except with a rotorcraft category rating) under §61.73 of this part, time acquired during a flight—
(A) Conducted in an appropriate aircraft;
(B) That is at least a straight-line distance of more than 50 nautical miles from the original point of departure; and
(C) That involves the use of dead reckoning, pilotage, electronic navigation aids, radio aids, or other navigation systems.
A 600 word definition that starts with the word “except”.
From DM flyer: Proposed Civil Aviation Regulation ActRule 1000(a). No pilot or pilots, or persons, or persons acting on the direction or suggestion or supervision of the pilot or pilots may try, or make attempt to try, to comprehend or understand any or all, in whole or in part, of the herein mentioned Civil Aviation Regulations, except as authorised by the Director or an agent appointed by the Director.Rule 1000(b). If the pilot or group of associated pilots become aware of, or realises, or detects, or discovers, or finds that he, or she, or they, are, or have been, beginning to understand the Civil Aviation Regulations, they must immediately within three (3) days notify in writing the Director. Rule 1000(c). Upon receipt of the abovementioned notice of impending comprehension, the Director will immediately re-write the Civil Aviation Regulations in such a manner as to eliminate any further comprehension hazards.
Rule 1000(d). The Director may, at his or her option, require the offending pilot, or pilots, to attend remedial instruction in the Civil Aviation Regulations until such time that the pilot, or pilots, are too confused to be capable of understanding anything.
Last edited by DancingDog; 17th Jul 2012 at 20:56.
Lawyers love a time consuming sh*te-fight over the meaning of a word.
se Fice re Caper and “usually”..or was it “generally”.”terrain”…. a tract of country/land. No mention of the liquid stuff there.
“water”….. a liquid compound of oxygen and hydrogen. No mention of any hard stuff there.
How a word, and/ or the use of, is interpreted can decide whether someone gets hung…or not. If it does not specify both then the regulation is poorly thought out and badly written…whose fault is that.? And we suffer with more enough of that convoluted gobbldegook as it is.
The psuedo-legals that cobble up these crap regs are failing the requirement that the regs must be written for the layman/user/us…and not just legal vomitus for lawyers to play with.
The bureaucrapic way is “complexitization”…creates more work, takes more time, costs more money..and the KISS principle is given the kiss-off. And GA suffers accordingly.
The time’s still ticking on the question: What does ‘cross-country time’ mean for the purpose of meeting the aeronautical experience requirements for a sport pilot certificate with powered parachute privileges?
It couldn’t be that hard to interpret the oh-so-simple FAR definition I quoted.
By the way, your Australian regulations have really complicated one (2(10)) that says:
Quote:
A reference in these regulations to height shall be read as a reference to:
(a) the vertical distance of a level or a point, or if an object is specified, that object considered as a point, measured from the datum specified in connection with the reference, or where no datum is specified, measured from the ground or water;
The problem for simple private pilots like me is that I have not a snowballs chance in hell of understanding the finer points of the regulations, let alone the arcane circumlocutions and operating contortions necessary to comply, in fact I even doubt that compliance is possible in some circumstances.
By way of example, my understanding is that it is a criminal offence to start an engine without switching on a red anticollision beacon – if such beacon is fitted to the aircraft.
It is therefore a legitimate method of avoiding the possibility of committing this offence by not fitting a beacon (experimental or RAA), or causing the beacon to be removed if this option is legal for a certified aircraft.
What if such beacon is unserviceable? Is this a defence?
The net result is that as a private pilot I can only operate under the following assumptions.
1. Follow common sense.
2. Avoid possible interaction with CASA on the grounds that CASA will always find a “point of order” on which to prosecute you if it feels like it on the day.
By way of example – luggage restraints in a C172. Do tie down straps or cargo nets require certification? What is the lesser penalty here? Unrestrained baggage? The fitting and use of unapproved equipment? (eg a tiedown strap purchased from Bunnings)
That’s exactly why they need to make the regs more accessible, perhaps with a ‘FAQ’ section, seeing as you can get them online easily these days.
Q. Can I fit commonly available cargo restraints (eg cargo nets purchased from hardware stores and the like) in the baggage compartment of my light aircraft?
A. Yes, as long as they are capable of restraining the cargo with a 4 g vertical acceleration, 2 g longitudinally … (or whatever the real answer is). Restraints should be tested with a spring balance to establish a maximum weight capability. Refer to CAAP bla bla bla
I asked a simple question, Do I still have a SCPL?
Quote:
Dear Mr xxx
I refer to your telephone conversation with Diane Shelback on xxxx regarding the validity of your Senior Commercial Pilot Licence.I am pleased to confirm that your Senior Commercial Pilot Licence Number xxxxxx is valid. This means that you are Authorised to exercise all of the privileges of this licence as specified in Civil Aviation Regulation 56(1)(a)(iv) of Statutory Rule 1988 No.158.The grounds upon which this declaration is made are:
a) your Senior Commercial Pilot Licence is one to which Regulation 43 of Statutory Rule No 279 of 1992 applies.
b) although you have been issued with a First Class Airline Transport Pilot Licence, your First Class Airline Transport Pilot Licence is not a “new air transport pilot (aeroplane) licence” as mentioned in paragraph 43.2(b) of subregulation 43.2 of Statutory Rule No 279 of 1992. The significance of this point is that the issue of your ATPL has not nullified your SCPL. The considerations which lead to your ATPL not being regarded as a new ATPL are:
i) the term “new air transport pilot (aeroplane) licence” is not defined in Statutory Rule No 279 of 1992.
ii) a comparison of the definitions of new and old licences in subregulation 35.1 of that Statutory Rule shows that the determining factor as to whether a licence is a new or old licence is the regulation under which the licence was issued; licences issued under subregulation 55B of the old regulations are old licences, and licences issued under new subregulation 5.09(1) are new licences
iii) your ATPL was issued in xxxx, which date was before new subregulation 5.09(1) existed, and therefore your ATPL, is not a new licence.
In regard to your old Senior Commercial Pilot Licence, my duty of care obligee me to alert you to the following aspects:
i) while the licence is valid and you may exercise all of the privileges of the licence, these privilege do not include privileges pertaining to any rating that was endorsed on the licence unless that rating has been renewed and is current. Under the provisions of regulation 59 of the Civil Aviation Regulations of Statutory Rule 1988 No 158, ratings expired at the effluxion of the time periods specified in Civil Aviation Orders. I mention this particularly because in the Civil Aviation Act 1988 a licence is defined as including any rating that is endorsed on the licence. I do not want you to be under the misconception that the privileges of the licence include privileges pertaining to a rating endorsed on the licence; and ii) subregulation 66(2) of the Civil Aviation Regulations of Statutory Rule 1988 No 158 specified that “the types and categories of aircraft for which a licence is valid shall be specified by endorsement in the licence”. This means that you may fly, as a privilege of your Senior Commercial Pilot Licence No. xxxxx, only those aircraft that are endorsed in that licence. An endorsement of an aircraft type in another licence, (e.g. your First Class Airline Transport Pilot Licence), or in your pilot log-book under the provisions of CAR 5.23 (2), does not entitle you to fly that aircraft as a privilege of your Senior Commercial Pilot Licence. An endorsement in your pilot log-book does not apply to your SCPL because under tho terms of CAR Part 5, a SCPL is not a flight crew licence (see CAR 2, and CAR
5.08).
Should you have any further queries in this matter, please do not hesitate to contact Graeme Smith, telephone (06) 268 4393 or facsimile (06) 268 4426.
Yours sincerely,
BOB COOK
Manager Flight Crew Licensing
Directorate of Aviation Safety Regulation
ratings expired at the effluxion of the time periods specified in Civil Aviation Orders
It is preposterous to postulate that there are any obfuscative passages in the Aviation Regulations of this fine nation, and I will expand on this prima-facie observation prior to the effluxion of my lunch break.
What’s the matter Blackie missing your old combatant Kharon? Don’t worry mate the ghost of K is still watching over you whilst you drown your sorrows at the local, I’m sure he’ll make the return ferry trip when your time is up!
Meanwhile Blackie it appears your still rubbing shoulders with Creamy at the ‘Mutual Blinkered Horse Brigade’….that should keep you somewhat amused between opening and last drinks..cause other than Frank you might as well be the invisible bloke in that musty corner of the bar!
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n’est nulle part
Posts: 2,383
Most pilot’s can’t spell ironie. Ironye. Ironboard, (fkucit), let alone understand what it means. Can you please rephrase that?
Red is on the left if you are sitting in the aeroplane, that means port because it’s the same colour, green is what you look like if you fly in black clouds. Sorry just thinking out aloud…. Oh fkuck that to hard. Which brings me to another point…. but that’s off topic. I don’t remember eating that!
Location: Back in the ‘real world’ again; The party in Hokkaido over for another year but still maintaining the seemingly never ending search for a bad bottle of Red.
Age: 61
Posts: 1,998
Arm out the window; You’re Kevin Rudd, aren’t you!
As for the subject of this thread; A Lawyer aquaintance of mine once spent a few hours going through my copy of the ANOs as they were at the time and afterwards stated that in some instances only a Lawyer would be able to understand them.
He also claimed that he could fine several direct contradictions, ie one reg says no you can’t and another reg said yes you can!
And how much did you say has been spent on the rewrite so far, Taily?
Quote: As I read it, it’s saying “there is (or may be) another Part or Subpart dealing with the kind of authorisation in question, so be aware the requirements in this subpart are not the only ones.” Exactly, no ambiguityBlackhand said: So, why doesn’t it say that?”Plain English” is the instruction given to Parliamentary Counsel and it ought apply to whomever is drafting this stuff.
I’m a lawyer and I had to scratch my head to work out what the hell the author was saying. It shouldn’t take a precedent in the High Court to interpret something that should be relatively straight forward.
The definition given to particular words, such as “terrain” should be dealt with in a definitions section if the ordinary common meaning isn’t deemed sufficient although, God help us, it ought be clear enough.
Location: Back in the ‘real world’ again; The party in Hokkaido over for another year but still maintaining the seemingly never ending search for a bad bottle of Red.
Age: 61
Posts: 1,998
Quote:
Never mention him and me in the same sentence
A thousand apologies Sir.
Quote:
and they admit to burning over $200 million on the exercise
So I wonder how the sales of BMWs and Porsches have been in Canberra?
I suspect you may have failed to matriculate around the same time I failed to matriculate. It was an era in which grammar and comprehension were taught in Primary school, to a higher standard than is reached by most university graduates these days. Sad really.
The fact that our aviation regs are posted on the Attorney General’s website rather than the CASA website says something, doesn’t it?
CASA have allowed the legal fraternity to get theor claws into something that should be reasonably simple to understand and work with, and turn it into something that requires a lawyer to navigate to. How fortuitous for them!
However as Blackhand hinted at, isn’t this just another symptom of the increasingly litigious society we live in? The vast majority of us are law abiding and sensible aviators, but it appears the regs are engineered to cater for the minority of idiots that fcuk it up for the rest of us.
Quote:
Arm out the window; You’re Kevin Rudd, aren’t you!
The fact that our aviation regs are posted on the Attorney General’s website rather than the CASA website says something, doesn’t it?
CASA have allowed the legal fraternity to get theor claws into something …
The lack of understanding evident in that statement is breathtaking but, unfortunately, ubiquitous.
CASA is created by one sentence in a law passed by the parliament.
CASA’s powers and functions are specified in laws passed by the parliament.
Delegated legislation must be made in accordance with laws passed by the parliament and the policies of the government of the day, then tabled for disallowance by the parliament. Regulations are made by the Governor-General, on recommendation from the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure. Only CAOs and small number of other legislative instruments are made by CASA. But they all have to be made, published and tabled in accordance with the same laws and policies.
The reason every aspect of daily life in Australia is being slowly regulated to death is that Australians keep electing dumb and dumber governments who are very happy to keep pumping out laws as fast as they can be made. Governments consider the making of a law to be an ‘achievement’ and ‘progress’. (Look at what the current government claims to be among its successes: the passage of thousands of pages of primary legislation that ultimately do only one of two things: tax the populace or create new criminal offences.)
The reason governments get away with it is because punters like CSD blame the regulators.
Just while we are at it, lets have a look at a real life regulation and compare the English in the CAR and that in the FAR’s:
CIVIL AVIATION REGULATIONS 1988 – REG 157 Low flying(1) The pilot in command of an aircraft must not fly the aircraft over:
(a) any city, town or populous area at a height lower than 1,000 feet; or
(b) any other area at a height lower than 500 feet.
Penalty: 50 penalty units.
(2) An offence against subregulation (1) is an offence of strict liability. Note For strict liability , see section 6.1 of the Criminal Code .
(3) A height specified in subregulation (1) is the height above the highest point of the terrain, and any object on it, within a radius of:
(a) in the case of an aircraft other than a helicopter — 600 metres; or
(b) in the case of a helicopter — 300 metres;
from a point on the terrain vertically below the aircraft.
(3A) Paragraph (1) (a) does not apply in respect of a helicopter flying at a designated altitude within an access lane details of which have been published in the AIP or NOTAMS for use by helicopters arriving at or departing from a specified place.
(4) Subregulation (1) does not apply if:
(a) through stress of weather or any other unavoidable cause it is essential that a lower height be maintained; or
(b) the aircraft is engaged in private operations or aerial work operations, being operations that require low flying, and the owner or operator of the aircraft has received from CASA either a general permit for all flights or a specific permit for the particular flight to be made at a lower height while engaged in such operations; or
(c) the pilot of the aircraft is engaged in flying training and flies over a part of a flying training area in respect of which low flying is authorised by CASA under subregulation 141 (1); or
(d) the pilot of the aircraft is engaged in a baulked approach procedure, or the practice of such procedure under the supervision of a flight instructor or a check pilot; or
(e) the aircraft is flying in the course of actually taking-off or landing at an aerodrome; or
(f) the pilot of the aircraft is engaged in:
(i) a search; or
(ii) a rescue; or
(iii) dropping supplies;
in a search and rescue operation; or
(g) the aircraft is a helicopter:
(i) operated by, or for the purposes of, the Australian Federal Police or the police force of a State or Territory; and
(ii) engaged in law enforcement operations; or
(h) the pilot of the aircraft is engaged in an operation which requires the dropping of packages or other articles or substances in accordance with directions issued by CASA.AND the comparative FAR:
§ 91.119 Minimum safe altitudes: General.
Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:
(a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.
(b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft.
(c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.
(d) Helicopters. Helicopters may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section if the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface. In addition, each person operating a helicopter shall comply with any routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the Administrator.
Just a bit easier to understand
Ooo-err! Looks like I’ve done gone and ruffled the wig of the resident lawyer. Well, it’s not the first time I’ve fallen afoul of the legal fraternity!
C.P.,
Firstly, thanks for the explanation of the legislative process. 27 years ago the rule book was less than half the size it is now. My bleat about having to access the regs on the AG’s website was but pining for a simpler time. Back then a pilot was judged by their ability to operate an aircraft safely and efficiently both on the ground and in the air (anybody else remember that definition?!). These days it appears that the standard is now being able to quote chapter and verse from the ever-increasing and unnecessarily complex rules that seem to be designed to catch you out.
Quote:
The reason every aspect of daily life in Australia is being slowly regulated to death is that Australians keep electing dumb and dumber governments who are very happy to keep pumping out laws as fast as they can be made. Governments consider the making of a law to be an ‘achievement’ and ‘progress’. (Look at what the current government claims to be among its successes: the passage of thousands of pages of primary legislation that ultimately do only one of two things: tax the populace or create new criminal offences.)
Agree – mostly. However you have to concede that the increasingly litigious nature of our society is a key factor here. CASA are just tin-plating their asses here. And guess what – they’re not Robinson Crusoe in that regard.
Quote:
The reason governments get away with it is because punters like CSD blame the regulators.
Not just the regulators. And don’t call me a punt.
My bleat about having to access the regs on the AG’s website was but pining for a simpler time.
No, it wasn’t just about that. You blamed CASA for that outcome:
Quote:
CASA have allowed the legal fraternity to get theor claws into something that should be reasonably simple to understand
CASA hasn’t ‘allowed’ anything. CASA has continued to do what it’s told to do or – perhaps more importantly – what it’s allowed to get away with, by its political lords and masters.
You need to understand the metaphor about monkeys and organ grinders to understand my point.
Quote:
the increasingly litigious nature of our society
Where is your data to demonstrate our society is ‘increasingly litigious’?
CASA has continued to do what it’s told to do or – perhaps more importantly – what it’s allowed to get away with, by its political lords and masters.]
So you agree with me then?
Quote:
Where is your data to demonstrate our society is ‘increasingly litigious’?
Oh you cannot be serious (spoken in my best John McEnroe voice)! You want “data”? Try the media for a start. Seems like every day there’s a story about someone sueing someone else. It’s becoming a national sport. I’ve even been threatened with legal action myself for proffering a professional opinion. They didn’t have the guts to follow it through though.
Last edited by Captain Sand Dune; 22nd Jul 2012 at 09:33.
You can’t tell the difference between CASA being allowed to do something, and CASA allowing something to be done, CSD? I suppose I should no longer be surprised at the number of pilots who are evidently functionally illiterate.
So ‘the media’ is your data, CSD? That would be the same media that are roundly criticized on PPRuNe, on the grounds of inaccuracy, whenever reports about matters relating to aviation are published?
‘Millions of lawyers’, eh FA? Another one based on ‘the media’?
‘Millions of lawyers’, eh FA? Another one based on ‘the media’?
Maybe a little grand but based on the admissions adverts there surely isn’t a shortage , and they all need to earn a buck , the amount of litigation is not a shrinking statistic.
Sadly, it is now recognised that Australia is now the most litigious (sp?) society in the world – we have overtaken the good ole US of A in the number of lawsuits filed per head.
I also read recently in the media that Australia is one of the most regulated countries in the world. Commentators put this down to
a) our convict past (apparently we are very likely to do something unless we are specifically told not to), and
b) our enterprising spirit (even if we are specifically told not to, we will still try and bend the rules if if we reckon we can get away with it).
This means that in a bid to cover their arse, regulators then try to make sure the rules cover every potential possibility, no matter how unlikely or outlandish that possibility might be.
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n’est nulle part
Posts: 2,383
Most pilot’s can’t spell ironie. Ironye. Ironboard, (fkucit), let alone understand what it means. Can you please rephrase that?
Red is on the left if you are sitting in the aeroplane, that means port because it’s the same colour, green is what you look like if you fly in black clouds. Sorry just thinking out aloud…. Oh fkuck that to hard. Which brings me to another point…. but that’s off topic. I don’t remember eating that!
Location: Back in the ‘real world’ again; The party in Hokkaido over for another year but still maintaining the seemingly never ending search for a bad bottle of Red.
Age: 61
Posts: 1,998
Arm out the window; You’re Kevin Rudd, aren’t you!
As for the subject of this thread; A Lawyer aquaintance of mine once spent a few hours going through my copy of the ANOs as they were at the time and afterwards stated that in some instances only a Lawyer would be able to understand them.
He also claimed that he could fine several direct contradictions, ie one reg says no you can’t and another reg said yes you can!
And how much did you say has been spent on the rewrite so far, Taily?
Quote: As I read it, it’s saying “there is (or may be) another Part or Subpart dealing with the kind of authorisation in question, so be aware the requirements in this subpart are not the only ones.” Exactly, no ambiguityBlackhand said: So, why doesn’t it say that?”Plain English” is the instruction given to Parliamentary Counsel and it ought apply to whomever is drafting this stuff.
I’m a lawyer and I had to scratch my head to work out what the hell the author was saying. It shouldn’t take a precedent in the High Court to interpret something that should be relatively straight forward.
The definition given to particular words, such as “terrain” should be dealt with in a definitions section if the ordinary common meaning isn’t deemed sufficient although, God help us, it ought be clear enough.
Location: Back in the ‘real world’ again; The party in Hokkaido over for another year but still maintaining the seemingly never ending search for a bad bottle of Red.
Age: 61
Posts: 1,998
Quote:
Never mention him and me in the same sentence
A thousand apologies Sir.
Quote:
and they admit to burning over $200 million on the exercise
So I wonder how the sales of BMWs and Porsches have been in Canberra?
I suspect you may have failed to matriculate around the same time I failed to matriculate. It was an era in which grammar and comprehension were taught in Primary school, to a higher standard than is reached by most university graduates these days. Sad really.
The fact that our aviation regs are posted on the Attorney General’s website rather than the CASA website says something, doesn’t it?
CASA have allowed the legal fraternity to get theor claws into something that should be reasonably simple to understand and work with, and turn it into something that requires a lawyer to navigate to. How fortuitous for them!
However as Blackhand hinted at, isn’t this just another symptom of the increasingly litigious society we live in? The vast majority of us are law abiding and sensible aviators, but it appears the regs are engineered to cater for the minority of idiots that fcuk it up for the rest of us.
Quote:
Arm out the window; You’re Kevin Rudd, aren’t you!
The fact that our aviation regs are posted on the Attorney General’s website rather than the CASA website says something, doesn’t it?
CASA have allowed the legal fraternity to get theor claws into something …
The lack of understanding evident in that statement is breathtaking but, unfortunately, ubiquitous.
CASA is created by one sentence in a law passed by the parliament.
CASA’s powers and functions are specified in laws passed by the parliament.
Delegated legislation must be made in accordance with laws passed by the parliament and the policies of the government of the day, then tabled for disallowance by the parliament. Regulations are made by the Governor-General, on recommendation from the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure. Only CAOs and small number of other legislative instruments are made by CASA. But they all have to be made, published and tabled in accordance with the same laws and policies.
The reason every aspect of daily life in Australia is being slowly regulated to death is that Australians keep electing dumb and dumber governments who are very happy to keep pumping out laws as fast as they can be made. Governments consider the making of a law to be an ‘achievement’ and ‘progress’. (Look at what the current government claims to be among its successes: the passage of thousands of pages of primary legislation that ultimately do only one of two things: tax the populace or create new criminal offences.)
The reason governments get away with it is because punters like CSD blame the regulators.
Just while we are at it, lets have a look at a real life regulation and compare the English in the CAR and that in the FAR’s:
CIVIL AVIATION REGULATIONS 1988 – REG 157 Low flying(1) The pilot in command of an aircraft must not fly the aircraft over:
(a) any city, town or populous area at a height lower than 1,000 feet; or
(b) any other area at a height lower than 500 feet.
Penalty: 50 penalty units.
(2) An offence against subregulation (1) is an offence of strict liability. Note For strict liability , see section 6.1 of the Criminal Code .
(3) A height specified in subregulation (1) is the height above the highest point of the terrain, and any object on it, within a radius of:
(a) in the case of an aircraft other than a helicopter — 600 metres; or
(b) in the case of a helicopter — 300 metres;
from a point on the terrain vertically below the aircraft.
(3A) Paragraph (1) (a) does not apply in respect of a helicopter flying at a designated altitude within an access lane details of which have been published in the AIP or NOTAMS for use by helicopters arriving at or departing from a specified place.
(4) Subregulation (1) does not apply if:
(a) through stress of weather or any other unavoidable cause it is essential that a lower height be maintained; or
(b) the aircraft is engaged in private operations or aerial work operations, being operations that require low flying, and the owner or operator of the aircraft has received from CASA either a general permit for all flights or a specific permit for the particular flight to be made at a lower height while engaged in such operations; or
(c) the pilot of the aircraft is engaged in flying training and flies over a part of a flying training area in respect of which low flying is authorised by CASA under subregulation 141 (1); or
(d) the pilot of the aircraft is engaged in a baulked approach procedure, or the practice of such procedure under the supervision of a flight instructor or a check pilot; or
(e) the aircraft is flying in the course of actually taking-off or landing at an aerodrome; or
(f) the pilot of the aircraft is engaged in:
(i) a search; or
(ii) a rescue; or
(iii) dropping supplies;
in a search and rescue operation; or
(g) the aircraft is a helicopter:
(i) operated by, or for the purposes of, the Australian Federal Police or the police force of a State or Territory; and
(ii) engaged in law enforcement operations; or
(h) the pilot of the aircraft is engaged in an operation which requires the dropping of packages or other articles or substances in accordance with directions issued by CASA.AND the comparative FAR:
§ 91.119 Minimum safe altitudes: General.
Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:
(a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.
(b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft.
(c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.
(d) Helicopters. Helicopters may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section if the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface. In addition, each person operating a helicopter shall comply with any routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the Administrator.
Just a bit easier to understand
Ooo-err! Looks like I’ve done gone and ruffled the wig of the resident lawyer. Well, it’s not the first time I’ve fallen afoul of the legal fraternity!
C.P.,
Firstly, thanks for the explanation of the legislative process. 27 years ago the rule book was less than half the size it is now. My bleat about having to access the regs on the AG’s website was but pining for a simpler time. Back then a pilot was judged by their ability to operate an aircraft safely and efficiently both on the ground and in the air (anybody else remember that definition?!). These days it appears that the standard is now being able to quote chapter and verse from the ever-increasing and unnecessarily complex rules that seem to be designed to catch you out.
Quote:
The reason every aspect of daily life in Australia is being slowly regulated to death is that Australians keep electing dumb and dumber governments who are very happy to keep pumping out laws as fast as they can be made. Governments consider the making of a law to be an ‘achievement’ and ‘progress’. (Look at what the current government claims to be among its successes: the passage of thousands of pages of primary legislation that ultimately do only one of two things: tax the populace or create new criminal offences.)
Agree – mostly. However you have to concede that the increasingly litigious nature of our society is a key factor here. CASA are just tin-plating their asses here. And guess what – they’re not Robinson Crusoe in that regard.
Quote:
The reason governments get away with it is because punters like CSD blame the regulators.
Not just the regulators. And don’t call me a punt.
My bleat about having to access the regs on the AG’s website was but pining for a simpler time.
No, it wasn’t just about that. You blamed CASA for that outcome:
Quote:
CASA have allowed the legal fraternity to get theor claws into something that should be reasonably simple to understand
CASA hasn’t ‘allowed’ anything. CASA has continued to do what it’s told to do or – perhaps more importantly – what it’s allowed to get away with, by its political lords and masters.
You need to understand the metaphor about monkeys and organ grinders to understand my point.
Quote:
the increasingly litigious nature of our society
Where is your data to demonstrate our society is ‘increasingly litigious’?
CASA has continued to do what it’s told to do or – perhaps more importantly – what it’s allowed to get away with, by its political lords and masters.]
So you agree with me then?
Quote:
Where is your data to demonstrate our society is ‘increasingly litigious’?
Oh you cannot be serious (spoken in my best John McEnroe voice)! You want “data”? Try the media for a start. Seems like every day there’s a story about someone sueing someone else. It’s becoming a national sport. I’ve even been threatened with legal action myself for proffering a professional opinion. They didn’t have the guts to follow it through though.
Last edited by Captain Sand Dune; 22nd Jul 2012 at 09:33.
You can’t tell the difference between CASA being allowed to do something, and CASA allowing something to be done, CSD? I suppose I should no longer be surprised at the number of pilots who are evidently functionally illiterate.
So ‘the media’ is your data, CSD? That would be the same media that are roundly criticized on PPRuNe, on the grounds of inaccuracy, whenever reports about matters relating to aviation are published?
‘Millions of lawyers’, eh FA? Another one based on ‘the media’?
‘Millions of lawyers’, eh FA? Another one based on ‘the media’?
Maybe a little grand but based on the admissions adverts there surely isn’t a shortage , and they all need to earn a buck , the amount of litigation is not a shrinking statistic.
Sadly, it is now recognised that Australia is now the most litigious (sp?) society in the world – we have overtaken the good ole US of A in the number of lawsuits filed per head.
I also read recently in the media that Australia is one of the most regulated countries in the world. Commentators put this down to
a) our convict past (apparently we are very likely to do something unless we are specifically told not to), and
b) our enterprising spirit (even if we are specifically told not to, we will still try and bend the rules if if we reckon we can get away with it).
This means that in a bid to cover their arse, regulators then try to make sure the rules cover every potential possibility, no matter how unlikely or outlandish that possibility might be.
Good one! Having a juvenile sense of humour I thought I’d heard most of those, but that’s a newie to me.
Back to the debate / mud-slinging match, though; surely no-one can honestly claim our regs are produced with clarity of expression and ease of use as the uppermost priorities, can they?
If we accept that they aren’t (as I do), my next question is: why not?
Yes, they must be legally tight and consistent, but surely CASA has a duty to produce stuff that bloody well works for the industry!
It would appear that unlike the Oz Maritime Laws, that are very much standardised worldwide, we have along way to go (if ever) before we adopt a similar suite of regs to either the EU or US!
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. aviation system received a score of 91 out of 100 in a new safety audit released today by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), a United Nations agency that oversees international civil aviation.
“This audit by ICAO validates our systems approach to safety,” said Robert A. Sturgell, acting administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). “The results show that our priorities are in the right place.”
The U.S. score, which was well above the global average of 56, reflected U.S. compliance with over 9,500 international safety standards. The FAA led U.S. preparations for the audit, which also included the National Transportation Safety Board, the U.S. Coast Guard and the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.
The team of ICAO auditors conducted a comprehensive audit of all aspects of civil aviation in the United States, including aircraft operations and airworthiness, accident investigation, navigation services, airports, personnel licensing and legislation and regulations. The auditors interviewed technical experts and conducted site visits to government and industry facilities to assess overall safety oversight.
The Universal Safety Oversight Audit Program was established by ICAO in 1995 at the urging of the United States. It provides civil aviation authorities throughout the world with valuable information on the overall health and effectiveness of their airspace systems.
Creamy , You are being way to precious, FAA is a National body with a defined set of Regulations, ICAO is an oversight body that audits compliance Internationally.
The 2 are only coincident at the point of audit and compliance with the published international standard.
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n’est nulle part
Posts: 2,383
The latest from The CASA Briefing;
In the past month CASA has asked the aviation industry to comment on three important proposed parts of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations. A notice of proposed rule making has been published for Part 119, which covers air operator’s certificates for passenger and cargo air transport. Drafts of Part 135 – air transport operations in small aeroplanes – and Part 133 – rotorcraft air transport operations – have also been released. In all three cases these proposed sets of rules are the culmination of years of work by both people in CASA and the aviation industry. In the case of Part 119 a total of 31 people are listed as having directly participated in the development of proposed regulations. This includes people from the major airlines, aviation academics and medium sized air operators. In addition, there has been previous broad consultation with the industry which allowed a wide range of other people to comment on the proposals. The draft regulations and proposed standards we are seeing now are the outcome of careful thought by many people about the future of aviation safety in Australia. They are most certainly not proposals created behind closed doors by CASA to be imposed on the aviation industry.
In fact, each new part of the suite of Civil Aviation Safety Regulations is a piece of a mosaic designed to create an even safer aviation safety system for Australia. As far as is possible the new rules are based on International Civil Aviation Organization standards and recommended practices and align with other leading aviation nations. The safety standards aim to address known risks and to improve the safety performance of organisations and individuals in aviation. In many areas of the proposed new rules there is a focus on building defences against organisational and individual failures that can jeopardise safety. Requirements for the establishment of safety management systems and the introduction of human factors training are examples of defences that we know will deliver better safety outcomes and these are being proposed where appropriate.
I understand that some people will look at the volume of proposed rules being released and feel a little overwhelmed and perhaps wonder why it is all happening now. The answer is that many of these regulatory parts are dependent on each other and only make sense when you can see the whole picture. If you are not directly affected by a set of proposed new regulations, you really only need to gain an understanding of the bigger picture, which you can quickly obtain from the summary information posted on the CASA web site. Naturally, if a set of rules impacts directly on your operations I would urge you to take the time to read the consultation material in more detail. There is more on the proposed Parts 119, 133 and 135 later in this edition of the CASA Briefing.
In summary, CASA will have the remaining new parts of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations made as law shortly, bringing an effective end to the regulatory reform program. CASA is very cognizant; however, that the major issue to be faced is the ability of the aviation industry to absorb change. In fact, at the recent Standards Consultative Committee meeting in Canberra, there were calls from some sectors of the industry for the regulatory reform program to be slowed down.
CASA has gained significant momentum over the last few years with the establishment of the Regulatory Task Force, which was formed in concert with the Attorney General’s Department. We would be foolish to disrupt this demonstrably successful initiative. However, CASA can and will moderate the commencement date of the new regulation suites and develop savings provisions as necessary as we assess the amount of transition that is required by the industry with the overriding caveat as explained above that many of the remaining regulatory parts are not viable as ‘stand-alone’ items: they must go as one package.
Once again, I urge you all to respond to our calls for comments so that Australia can move forward with a regulatory set that positions us at the forefront of the aviation industry world wide.
Best regards
John F McCormick
I particularly liked:
Quote:
CASA has gained significant momentum over the last few years with the establishment of the Regulatory Task Force, which was formed in concert with the Attorney General’s Department. We would be foolish to disrupt this demonstrably successful initiative.
Last edited by Frank Arouet; 24th Jul 2012 at 12:43.
Watch out Blackie “K” has docked the ferry and is off looking for lost souls!
Oh and Creamy here’s a genuine letter of concern for you to send to your local MP, all you need do is cut and paste, put the applicable MP’s name and address with your cursive down the bottom..then fwd on. Come on I know you want to…..certainly make’s more sense than the ‘skull spin’ in the regulator’s ripping yarns page!
To: the Member for Kickinatinalong.
Dear Member.
I am one of more than 100,000 people associated with aviation in Australia who will be voting in the impending Federal election. Like many of my colleagues I am deeply concerned about the present state of the industry, not only in terms of air safety but of the ability of the industry to remain viable under the present conditions. Could you please outline your party policy on the following important issues.
1) New Zealand, Canada and Papua New Guinea have each provided, using industry consultation, within a 5 year period an outcome based regulatory suite which has been welcomed by the national industry. Meanwhile, Australia remains internationally embarrassed by a suite of complex, prescriptive, criminal law based regulation which is legally and financially detrimental, unacceptable to and unusable by the industry, non compliant with International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) requirements, remains incomplete after 23 years and has so far cost in excess of two hundred million dollars.
2) The recent crash of an Air France Airbus claimed 256 lives; the report on the incident highlights many of the industry concerns related to pilot competency based training standards. These concerns were recently examined by the Senate and a ‘white paper’ was provided by the incumbent Minister. The industry believes the white paper to be a flawed, misleading, self serving document which solely allows the present Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) to continue drafting incompetent regulation without the benefit of expert industry consultation or addressing the issues.
3) There is a strong support within the industry for dismantling the present Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) and it’s replacement with a Civil Aviation Administration as in other ICAO compliant countries. One major concern, amongst many, is the devastating effect the CASA is having on the industry in terms of operator, pilot and industry confidence. This is affecting the industry ability to attract investment, foster training and create employment. There exists a real, tangible need to examine all facets of the manner in which the CASA conducts business with the user pays industry it serves.
4) Air Traffic Services (ATS) to the Australian public are essential to safety. The current system has been progressively and systematically degraded to the point where, many believe the probability of a mid air collision has increased to crisis point. The service is understaffed, over managed; and, beginning to show signs of being irretrievably damaged by a shortage of skilled, qualified personnel. There exists in real time, a pressing need to provide the ATS with suitable equipment, the personnel to operate that equipment and a training system which returns Australia to a world class system for separating aircraft in the busy airspace surrounding our capital cities.
5) The International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) have through consultation developed an audit model which has been almost universally adapted by all responsible National Aviation Authorities. The industry believe that this model should be accepted and fully utilised in Australia. It is further acknowledged that Australia has one of the most lengthy ‘differences’ list with the ICAO system, approximately 2500 items, it is considered essential that this number be reduced and the industry returned to world best practice.
The points above serve to highlight just a few of the many aviation industry concerns. Would your government be prepared, through policy to announce an overhaul of the present system and return Australian aviation to its position as a world leader in safety and excellence?
“CASA is very cognizant; however, that the major issue to be faced is the ability of the aviation industry to absorb change. In fact, at the recent Standards Consultative Committee meeting in Canberra, there were calls from some sectors of the industry for the regulatory reform program to be slowed down.”
Pity their not cognizant of the “COST” and the industries ability to absorb it. These idiots need to understand that there are limits to what people are prepared to pay for a service…when the costs get ridiculous people look for alternatives…I mean DUUH! isnt that the premise the “Ginger Ninja” is using to justify her Carbon TAX. So Mr CASA if your few thousand pages of “B..llSh..t” drives the cost of aviation to that point where people wont pay for it what then?
You have nothing left to regulate.
The latest blurb, issued by ‘he who must not be named’ worries me more than any of the previous scripts provided from Yes Minister; it shows a new strategy.
Just have a read of some of the current rubbish on offer, talk to the engineers (those that have stayed in business) then decide. It will do no good to whinge and whine after this mess becomes law; and, by the sounds of it, there is a whole load of ‘new’ law heading your way. There is a little time before the next election.
So far the ‘new’ regulations have provided a garbled mix of CAO and CAR loaded in favour of the regulator, larded with Draconian threats and seasoned with complex language. The next step will be to dump a load of unworkable rubbish into the industry lap and say – ‘there you go boys, new regs’. Then it becomes the industry problem, not theirs. Yes Minister, we delivered, not our fault the industry can’t work them. We consulted, we redrafted and we provided.
Have the regulations been reformed and remodelled in compliance with ICAO and the rest of the world? or have we just been handed a stew of the same of old crap, reformatted to suit.
After all what do you expect from a bunch of geriatrics, who are totally disenfranchised from the mainstream industry stakeholders!
Skull’s spiel from the July edition of ‘Ripping Yarns’ is almost word for word from the bureaucratise book of spin, he even has the audacity to blame certain operators for current delays. Oh but haven’t I heard that before somewhere??…
Quote:
More time for input on new rules
The aviation industry is being given more time to consider key proposals for reform of the aviation safety regulations.
The Civil Aviation Safety Authority is extending the cut-off date for comments on six detailed safety reform documents.
This follows calls from many sections of the aviation industry to allow extra time for careful consideration of the reform proposals.
CASA’s Director of Aviation Safety, Mick Toller, says industry comment is vital in getting the new safety regulations right.
“The new regulations will set the framework for aviation safety in Australia for the first part of this Century, so it is critical they are the best we can achieve,” Mr Toller says.
“CASA can’t do this alone – we need to draw on the expertise and knowledge of as many people in the aviation industry as possible.
“In recent weeks a number of people have told me they are very keen to comment on these proposals but they simply need more time.
“These Discussion Papers and Notices of Proposed Rule Making are large documents and some of the issues are complex, so it is only sensible to allow as much time as possible for comment.
“I urge people in aviation in Australia to give their input to the proposed reforms so we can refine and improve on the drafts.”
CASA is extending the comment deadline until August 31 for six reform documents.
These cover pilot licensing, flying training, air operator certification, large air transport operations and small air transport operations.
The consultation documents have been issued by CASA as part of the program of rewriting Australia’s aviation safety regulations.
Oh and the proforma spiels let’s see….here’s one from 1999:
Quote:
CASA MediaRelease – 29 June 1999 CASA’s ambitious reform program The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) is setting itself an ambitiousprogram of reform for the future, according to the new Chairman Dr PaulScully-Power. Dr Scully-Power says CASA is committed to continuing the rewriting of Australianaviation regulations and to fair and consistent enforcement of the rules.
He says aviation regulations will be simpler and easier to follow and willmove closer to international standards.
“The CASA Board has a clear vision of the changes and reforms whichare required to help improve the safety record of aviation in Australia andwill work to ensure they are embraced by everyone in CASA and theindustry,” Dr Scully-Power says.
“Our long term goal is to make flying as easy as possible for everyonein Australia who complies with the rules and acts responsibly.
“In the short term CASA has a number of important projects under waythat will deliver real benefits to the aviation industry and the travellingpublic.
“The most important of these projects is the continuing work torewrite the aviation safety regulations.
“This is a huge job which has been progressing for some time and willtake many more months to complete.
“Right now the new regulations governing Airworthiness Directives arebeing finalised and should come into effect by the end of October this year. “Rules relating to Aircraft Registration and Markings will berewritten in the second half of this year.”
….and 2002!
Quote:
CASA Media Release – Thursday 17 October 2002 New air safety rules to help industry A new analysis shows the restructuring of Australia’s aviation regulations will greatly simplify and clarify air safety requirements. More than 900 civil aviation regulations and orders will be organised into 53 key categories under the new structure of the air safety rules.
This user-friendly approach will make it easier for people in the aviation industry to find the right rules for their operation.
The categories – known as Parts under the new structure – cover areas such as airworthiness, maintenance, licensing, flight rules, air transport operations and aerodromes.
At the moment people working in a small airline or charter business must follow specific rules for their type of operation, which are contained in more than 95 different civil aviation regulations and orders.
Under the new structure all the rules dedicated to small airlines and charter operations will be in a single category – Part 121B.
Large airlines currently follow rules specific to their operations which are located in more than 65 different regulatory areas. These will now be grouped into one category – Part 121A.
General operating and flight rules are now spelt out in at least 95 regulations and orders. These will be located in a single category – Part 91.
CASA’s Acting Director of Aviation Safety, Bruce Gemmell, says the new analysis of the regulatory reform programme is a real eye-opener.
“The proposed new structure has been around for a while but no-one has sat down and looked carefully at it’s impact in this way,” Mr Gemmell says.
“The good news is that the impact is very, very positive. The life of everybody involved in aviation in Australia will be a great deal easier under this simpler, clearer regulatory structure.
“Under the new rules you can go to a clear subject area to look up the regulations and requirements specific to your aviation operations. Naturally, for most people there will still be generally applicable rules that will be contained in other Parts.
“But the bottom-line is that under the new structure it will be easier to find the air safety requirements relevant to your operation.
“Of course, there’s a lot more to the reform of the regulations than just restructuring, however the benefits of this initiative alone are now obvious.”
If the industry was represented by a single voice (the same way the medical industry have the vocal and influential AMA) CASA would not exist most likely. I mean, who is the regulator for doctors and hospitals? When did you last see the medical regulator kicking ambulance tyres and counting bedpans at a hospital and then dangling your livelihood in front of you because they were displeased?
While we continue to allow the People’s Front of Judea (AIPA/AFAP) and the Judean People’s Front (TWU) and the Judean Popular People’s Front (ALAEA) and the myriad of other well meaning sectional interest groups to be the voice of industry there is no hope of containing the Romans (CASA).
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n’est nulle part
Posts: 2,383
It starts at “the grass roots” of general aviation before it gets to the Industrial Unions.
When you have, what used to be, a one man operation in the bush, training and doing the odd charter, turn into a multi faceted CASAcentric, paper intensive, AOC regulatory overburden operation with criminal consequences, you have what we have now. A “clusterfcuk”
I have always said, there is no democracy on the flight deck, so the concept of a large number of “alpha” males/ (females) getting together and coming to any concensus is pure fantasy.
Asking our benevolent regulator to bin those same qualifications that got them the job in the first place, is similarly fantasy. We need leaders, not psychopaths in all facets of the industry.
1) CASA should regulate as as a CAA.
2) ATSB should investigate.
3) Federal police should prosecute.
Government needs to address item 1) first, as the regulations are unworkable for the other parties.
That would require a special federal copper aviation squad, wouldn’t it? But I think you’re right that CASA needs to be less Gestapo and more leading light.
Last edited by Arm out the window; 26th Jul 2012 at 16:20.
That would require a special federal copper aviation squad, wouldn’t it?
There already is an AFP aviation squad, I believe their acronym is JAIT or JAT for Joint Aviation (Investigation) Teams….and Frank I think it should be:
Quote:
1) CASA should regulate as as a CAA.
2) ATSB should investigate accidents/incidents.
3) AFP investigate breaches of the Civil Aviation Act.
4) CDPP should decide whether to prosecute.
The irony of 4) is that in JQ’s case the CDPP decided not to prosecute…but the regulator decided to go on with it regardless!!
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n’est nulle part
Posts: 2,383
Before I have any faith in the CDDP, I would firstly like to see what happens with “the Slipper affair”. Too many “incidents” have been buried here by higher authority.
Also one should be aware that most of the old OLC network now work for, or act for CDDP. (only a rumour, as strong as it came, but this is a rumour network isn’t it)?
Frank, Ah the CDPP the legal hall of fame, possibly the most inept bunch in the country.
In W.A. a Prosecutor completely stuffs Andrew Mallards life who gets a life jail term but the prosecutor is subsequently found to have run the case incompetently, result = $10,000 fine after he resigned and got a $270,000.00 payout. Mallard gets released by the Supreme court after 12 years, exonerated with a State $3.0million ex gratia payout.
I know not aviation related and state based but demonstrates the breathtaking way the various DPP protect their own.
Just a demonstration of the way the Criminal Justice system operates.
At least the new proposals to make all the raw data from ATSB incident reports available to CASA — “for enforcement purposes” will greatly reduce the workload for both organizations, as the flow of reports to ATSB ceases!!
There are no prizes on offer for guessing what comes next .
This Financially irresponsible, legally incompetent and morally bankrupt system cannot, any longer be allowed to dictate or manage the industry it is paid to serve.
You don’t seem to understand very much at all Blackhand.
The regulations are not written “in plain English”.
The regulations do not “mean what they say”.
This AAT decision demonstrates how one or more CASA staff perverted the meaning of the word “generally” in one of many perverse and badly written regulations to cause misery and expense to a number of operators. Anyone like to work out how much this has cost the industry?
CASA contended that Caper, contrary to its AOC, was conducting RPT operations between Darwin and Bathurst Island. CASA claimed that Caper’s operation did not fall within the description of charter operations in either CAR 206(1)(b)(i) or (ii). That was because those operations were in accordance with fixed schedules, to and from fixed terminals, for the purpose of transporting persons or cargo generally.
Although I have found that Caper operated between Darwin and Bathurst Island in accordance with fixed schedules, to and from fixed terminals, that operation does not fall under the definition of RPT. That is because the accommodation on Caper’s aircraft in that operation is not available for use by persons generally. In my opinion, reading the adverbial clause in CAR 206(1)(b)(ii) in accordance with its grammatical construction makes it clear that the word generally qualifies the adjective available and not the noun persons. In other words, an operation is a charter operation where accommodation in the aircraft is not generally available for use by persons. The adverb, generally, cannot qualify or modify the noun persons. Unfortunately, it appears that this is the way in which the expression has been understood by CASA. It has resulted in attempts to distinguish charter from RPT on a basis which makes no sense and is not related to the safety of air navigation. In my opinion, the correct way in which CAR 206 should be understood will alleviate those problems.
I have also briefly examined the validity of CAR 206(1)(b) in general. I have found that because that regulation is merely concerned with definitions, it has been lawfully made under s 98 of the Act. Unlike the earlier Air Navigation Regulations dealing with the licensing of air operations, following the commencement of the 1988 Act, s 28 is where CASA derives its power to control the commercial operations of AOC holders. Those matters are no longer dealt with under the regulations.
I find that the decision made by CASA on 7 September 2010 to cancel one of the authorisations contained in Caper’s AOC in respect of its operations between Darwin and Bathurst Island for the purpose of conducting the Tiwi Islands tours was incorrect. I set aside that decision and instead determine that the conditions on Caper’s AOC should remain unaltered. Caper should be permitted to continue with its charter operations between Darwin and Bathurst Island.
……..And of course the good member Fice, cannot rule on whether this was malicious or just stupidity.
I would like to see an interpretation of carriage in a aircraft from a fixed terminal to a fixed terminal in which the seats are sold on a individual basis and that the flights are available from 08:00 until 17:00 daily.
HL, sorry about that, I should refresh before adding a post. It took a while to read the decision.
The next level of air operation is charters – both open and closed – as described in subregs 206(1)(b)(i) and (ii). These types of operation attract a higher level of regulatory attention. The risk to the public in such charter operations is limited in different ways in each category.
In an open charter, carriage of the general public is contemplated but only if it is not to be performed on a fixed schedule to and from fixed terminals.
In a closed charter, carriage may be undertaken on a fixed schedule to and from fixed terminals but the general public may not be carried. Whatever risks the passengers are exposed to in a closed charter, those risks are confined to a closed group.
So it would appear that, like all things, it is all a matter of timing. For a Bungles or Lake Eyre flight it is a matter of simply waiting for the punters to rock up, and go when they are ready. No more the massed first-light departures of 206s and 207s from KNX it seems.
What about longer trips, like the Belray tours through Argyle Diamond Mine? The inclusion of “lunch” in the price would appear to infer the operator is setting a schedule, would it not?
A quick read of the decision shows us the problem. The learned judges have taken note of the purpose of the act – to prevent accidents. One way to do this, consistent with the act, is to prevent aviation entirely. There is no modifying clause such as “consistent with reasonable commercial endeavors” or suchlike.
So the judges at about sect 51 have simply said that the law requires interpretation with regard to the purpose of the act, and if CASA interprets capers operation as RPT then that trumps the grammatical interpretation used by the tribunal.
To put it another way, words mean what CASA say they mean, not what you think they mean.
I find it strange that in the Caper decision no mention was made of the second reading of the Bill by Dept P.M Anderson in 1998 – it refers to CASA having a Safety role and not a Commercial one. All reference to Commercial to be removed? Wouldn’t such a direction ( Acts Interpretation Act 1901) be an Original Intent overriding most that went before.
In their submission to the Court CASA have established that Charter is much more dangerous than RPT with a similar aircraft. Having established this in Court, why have they let Charter flying continue knowing it is so unsafe. Once this was discovered over 14 years ago, why didn’t they immediately ground all Charter operators. I know of several cases where a Charter flight ended with fatal outcome. Does this make CASA complicit ? Any thoughts?
I conducted RPC note not RPT for nearly a year, halfway through my AOC was even renewed. When the interposed entity was changed to another, the whole of the operation became unsafe??? overnight, same pilots, same aircraft why didn’t Caper use this approval ? Same situation even condoned by OLC and the CDPP.
Blackhand, I am an occasional SCUBA diver. I always dive with a world renowned live aboard dive operator out of Cairns.
That dive tour operator advertises that a highlight part of the Seven to Ten day trip to the barrier reef and beyond is a flight either to or from Lizard Island and Cairns over the reef itself to meet or leave the boat.
These flights used to be conducted in a “convoy” in Two or Three Twins as they were the largest to land on Lizard.
Now these are RPT? The “airline” component of the price of the trip is derisory, your bar bill is bigger.
Furthermore, I question the issue of “schedule” in the case of Mike Ball Diving, and Kings the schedule is theirs, not the “airline”. I wonder if the Judges might like to consider this matter?
I reckon both the AAT and the Federal Court have erroneous reasoning in their decisions, but I reckon the AAT’s is less wrong than the Federal Court’s.
But my opinion on the question is irrelevant: the Federal Court’s decision is binding unless successfully appealed or distinguished/overturned.
This is merely another example of many that have arisen – unnecessarily – from a chronically incompetent and therefore unproductive regulatory reform process.
He seemed to infer that a “scenic” flight could occur from A back to A, but if you need to make a landing at an intermediate point before returning the same passengers to A “thats a bit too far to be a scenic flight”.
Is there a new arm to the definition of RPT?
– persons generally
– to & from fixed terminals
– too far to do without refuelling.
Is it the company’s place to suggest a departure time, or does that make it a fixed schedule?
Is it the company’s place to suggest a route for a scenic flight, or does that make it “to and from fixed terminals”?
My FOI suggested that it will all be clearer in a couple of years. I am hugely relieved.
I could send (another) letter to my local member but I am pretty sure that a serial pest will be the one that gets the regulator’s full attention!
He seemed to infer that a “scenic” flight could occur from A back to A, but if you need to make a landing at an intermediate point before returning the same passengers to A “thats a bit too far to be a scenic flight”.
Did your FOI happen to define what that flight would then be classified as?
Several times a year Croydon Travel conduct scenic flights to Antarctica, as an interposed entity who don’t appear to have an AOC but use Qantas aircraft this appears to meet the ($$$$$) requirements of the Regs. To the best of my knowledge Qantas don’t have this route on their AOC. I’m not suggesting there is a safety issue, but why do they need Croydon Travel?
Another better example is Captains Choice. Flies to a schedule – fixed terminals – open to the public if you can afford it. But then it’s not G.A. Stupid of me.
It took some reading, but again the effects of poorly worded legislation in reg 206 is again on us all.
From the FCA finding:
Quote:
41. The effect of s 27 of the Act is that if a commercial air activity is not prescribed in reg 206 then the operator of the aircraft does not require an AOC.
It is common ground between the parties that:
(a) in order to operate a commercial air charter service an AOC is required by operation of subreg 206(1)(b).
(b) Caper holds an AOC, issued on 10 Feb 2010, authorising it to conduct passenger carrying charter operations, in Australian territory, in specified Australian registered aircraft; and
(c) Caper is not and has never been authorised under its AOC to operate RPT services as defined by subreg 206(1)(c).
The effect here really becomes one where casa is regulating a commercial operation, not dealing with the underlying operation to ensure that the operation is operated safely.
and further:
Quote:
48, As a result the Tribunal was required to look behind the immediate textual content of subregs 206(1)(b)(ii) and (c) and carefully consider the scheme of the statutory provisions that prescribe the “commercial purposes” for which an AOC is required. The determination of the dispute rested on a choice between two different interpretations, and in construing the two provisions the Tribunal was required to apply an interpretation that would promote the purpose of the Act rather than one that would not. In my view it did not do so.
Again, is casa now to be the purveyor of the “commercial purposes”?
The effect of a completely separate entity [AAT] ringing the charter operator [Caper] and saying “We need an aircraft for a 9AM flight this week, but don’t know how many persons for the tour we are running, we will advise prior” has not at all been considered, nor the potential response of “Will you let us know the numbers and weight so we can decide whether a Chieftain or the 206 is available” has not at all been considered.
That the FOI in the matter has rung AAT or Caper, to get a seat, but was told that he could only get a seat by being part of a tour indicates that the flight is available only for a specific purpose.
To provide a flight for AAT customers to “Do the Tiwi tour” – surely a charter operation and in effect similar to that of a “regular” charter [RPT] by the Fly-In-Fly-Out [FIFO\ operators as described by the FCA judge.
One of the quoted cases is worth a read as to the matter of “Head of Power”, and it’s relevance in this matter.
We can take this further, remembering that the Caper matter has gone to the Tribunal, where they were successful. casa applies “double jeopardy” and goes to the Federal Court [The AAT, stands in the shoes of the Regulator] and the learned Judge, quotes the following:
Quote:
…the duty of a court is to give the words of a statutory provision the meaning that the legislature is taken to have intended them to have. Ordinarily, that meaning (the legal meaning) will correspond with the grammatical meaning of the provision. But not always. The context of the words, the consequences of a literal or grammatical construction, the purpose of the statute or the canons of construction may require the words of a legislative provision to be read in a way that does not correspond with the literal or grammatical meaning.
The key words are “…the duty of a court….”
Last time I looked, the AAT was not a Court!!!
If casa wants it this way, as Harvey [the casa million dollar man] appears to, then all the evidence must be to that standard, an issue in many cases, that has not been met.
Just look at some of the PPRuNe posts to this time.
Let’s have a competition to see who can rewrite the above message in the clearest way with the least number of words. First prize to be sponsored by CASA :- 1 hardbound copy of all CASA rules and regulations. You may submit more than one entry. Who’s going to have a go? Winner chosen by a vote in 3 days time.
Let’s have a competition to see who can rewrite the above message in the clearest way with the least number of words
If I was to attempt to interpret it, I’d say it means ‘If you get information from anyone you mustn’t tell them you won’t use it.’
Sadly, it’s clearly a legal arse-covering statement rather than a simple informative message. I can see why legal documents get so complex, eg:
“Were you aware you shouldn’t make an agreement not to divulge this information?”
“Yes, but I didn’t make an agreement, I gave him a nod and a wink.”
“Ah yes, but as clearly stated in this Minute dated 27 July 2011, that would imply an agreement, would it not?”
“Take me away, guv, you got me.”,
but f*#& me, that’s no way to write operating rules. Of course you need the legal basis, but as anyone who has had to read a legal contract knows, the language can be damn near impenetrable sometimes.
As a sentence, it’s complete crap. A reasonable reader has to scan it several times to figure out which are the subjects, and which the objects. Plainer language, shorter clauses and a few *** points would make the message much clearer. It amazes me that legal folk can still peddle a mess like this and get paid for it.
“CASA or anyone associated with CASA shall not communicate with anyone in a legitimate regulatory sense. any communication shall be in the normal illegitimate manner”. (25 words)
There shall therefore be no “show cause notices” or “Christmas cards” or Licenses or AOC applied for or issued.
It is quite straight forward, no hiding behind excuses, business as usual.
I thought German and Dutch had long sentences! but this must be a world record for Engrish.
Should my entry be the winning one, what assurance have I got that I wont have to take the sponsor to Court?
wouldn’t this be a great statement for Fice to decipher as he did in the “Direct Air” case, his decision only to be overturned in the Fed Court appeal on the basis of the “original intent” –
The original, “original intent” was the protection of a Duopoly under the Two Airline (Act) the hearing never got that far. Too much information for his Honour, CASA never raised it as it would only prolong the hearing and cost the “victim” more money! very considerate!
My earlier response clearly allows for such intent. Same has been established case after case – CASA’s original intent has always been to get rid of their “victim”
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n’est nulle part
Posts: 2,383
Stwange is the JUL of 11 minute, that it is from The Office of Diwecter Aviation Safety to all Exec Managers, which I assume is The Execututive Diwecter, and cc to himself and the deputy Diwecter.
Why is he writing letters to himself?
Was this discussed over morning tea and why was it presented in minute form?
“No one in CASA is ever to sign a confidentiality agreement or verbally agree to the same.”
Sound principle, I’ve seen some real shockers. Usually the more bloodthirsty the penalties in the confidentiality agreement, the shonkier the proposal. People like the venture capital arm of N. M. Rothschild won’t sign them either.
Here’s another one, just published on 20th February 2013:
Quote:
Project AS 12/45 Post Implementation of the Airspace Regulations (2007)IssueThe Airspace Regulations require amendment to remove ambiguity, enable applicability in the operational environment and to cater for the needs of Australia’s security authorities.
Without action, the validity of the delegation powers in use could be questioned, the validity of the application of the ARs to certain security scenarios could be questioned and complicated systems of legislative action will continue to be required to achieve simple safety outcomes operationally.
Project Objective
To make amendments to the Airspace Regulations in two (2) phases:
PHASE 1:
Clarify the delegation powers:
The Airspace Regulation delegation powers are unclear and require amendment to remove all doubt. Regulation 13 should make specific that the powers may be delegated to CASA airspace regulation officers and Military airspace regulation officers.
Cater for the needs of Australia’s Security Authorities:
The Airspace Act (Part 1, Section 3) identifies certain matters that are to be taken into account to ensure that Australian-administered airspace is administered and used safely. This includes “national security”. This term is insufficient to cover the various security needs that the OAR has been requested by the Government to enforce through the exercise of the Airspace Regulations. The changes made will remove any ambiguity.
PHASE 2:
1. Legislative Instruments Regulations Exemption
An exemption is sought under the Legislative Instruments Regulations 2004, Schedule 1, Part 2 (1A) for designations/directions made under Regulation 11/12. Air Traffic Control (ATC) providers may describe air routes verbally if operationally required. The air routes which are legislated do not cover flex routes or those made verbally by ATC providers, and are therefore incomplete. Pilots may request any particular way of reaching a destination as ATC has the ability to approve this.
Therefore, registering a small and incomplete set of air routes is of little value. Aviation maps show the common air routes in use and this is sufficient as a guide. The changes proposed are in accordance with ICAO Annexes, the Airspace Act and the Australian Airspace Policy Statement.
I hope this one is clear as well – I won’t read the docs as these will only confuse me further.
Just have a look at who the author is!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Quote:
About this charter
The purpose of this Charter is to describe to the public and the aviation community, the service experience that can be expected in dealing with the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) and its staff.
We have a responsibility to inform people about their rights and responsibilities, including the right to expect high standards of service and behaviour from CASA officers.
We believe that people who are better informed and have a clearer understanding of legislative requirements are better able to comply with the rules and regulations in the maintenance of air safety. This in turn will enhance aviation safety levels in Australia.
The CASA Service Charter sets out our feedback process, so that you can let us know how well we are implementing our Service levels and how we can improve our service to you.
The Charter also sets out our Complaints Handling procedure so that you can let us know if you are dissatisfied with the standards of service you have received or are unhappy with a decision made by CASA staff. We believe that it is in everybody’s interests to resolve complaints efficiently and effectively.
Reports on our performance against this Service Charter will be included in our Annual Report.
This Charter forms part of CASA’s strategic planning and reporting system, which is based on the Corporate Plan. It has been developed in accordance with the Whole of Government approach detailed in the Department of Finance and Administration publication ‘Client Service Charter Principles’.
It has been prepared in consultation with staff, other relevant agencies and a broad cross section of the aviation community.
We will seek stakeholders’ views on the Charter’s effectiveness on a regular basis and use this information to improve our services.
Post Implementation Review of CASR Part 99.B – Drug and alcohol management plans
Issue
In March 2009, Part 99 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 was introduced to cover drug and alcohol management plans (DAMP) and testing.
Since 2009, the initiative has been implemented by industry and oversighted by CASA. Since its original conception, there have been various implementation issues raised that require regulatory amendments to ensure transparency and continued high safety standards.
Issues to be addressed include but are not limited to:
Definition of safety sensitive vs safety critical activities/ roles that are required to be covered by DAMPs and DAMP testing
Definition of SSAA employee to be covered by DAMP
Definition of post-accident or serious incident as this affects testing requirements
DAMP responsibility and coverage issues e.g. contractors The Drug and Alcohol Education Program requirement – should CASA supply this program?
The requirement for pre-deployment testing
Ensuring DAMP testing is meeting the relevant Australian Standard
Should there be an industry requirement for random testing?
Reporting requirement from organisation to CASA following a confirmed positive test
Improving the return to work ‘response program’ model
These are primarily regulatory amendment issues to be clarified that will help increase regulatory understanding from industry. The amendments will also improve unnecessary costs and resourcing issues that are faced by DAMP organisation which will in turn increase compliance while maintaining the same safety standards.
The last para is a “doosey”
and those involved:
Quote:
Project management
Project Leader/s: Sharon Nylen, DAMP Oversight Section Head, Industry Permissions
Project Sponsor/s: Peter Fereday, Executive Manager Industry Permissions
Dr Pooshan Navathe – Aviation Medicine Principal Medical Officer
Gerard Campbell, A/g Executive Manager Operations
Adam Anastasi, General Counsel and Executive Manager Legal
Standards Officer/s: Ian Banks, Manager SMS & Human Factors, Standards Division
Project Leader/s: Sharon Nylen, DAMP Oversight Section Head, Industry Permissions
Project Sponsor/s: Peter Fereday, Executive Manager Industry Permissions
Dr Pooshan Navathe – Aviation Medicine Principal Medical Officer
Gerard Campbell, A/g Executive Manager Operations
Adam Anastasi, General Counsel and Executive Manager Legal
Standards Officer/s: Ian Banks, Manager SMS & Human Factors, Standards Division
Hmmmm. Some of the usual project persons in that lot!
It all sounds like a load of pony poohshan to me!
I am surprised one of the other bald Camberra’ites isn’t involved in this project as a sponsor? The one who normally likes to surround himself with people who get their hands dirty while he wins all that accolades.
Anyway, its all bollocks.
Last edited by my oleo is extended; 18th Mar 2013 at 20:42.
Here is another, but look at the apparent [if you can understand the english] kick in the tail:
Quote:
Project SS 13/04
CASR Part 117 – Representations and surveys IssueCreation of a part in the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 (CASR) – Part 117 to deal with regulatory requirements that don’t precisely fit into the CASR Parts.This part will also serve as a future home for some new regulations with respect to proposed amendments to the Act that will provide a new head of power for matters currently unregulated.
Project Objective
The development of Part 117 will involve the relocation of CAR 210 from the CARs to the CASR’s, consolidation and updating of the survey requirements as a result of the Part 141 amendments.
Status
This project was approved by Peter Boyd, Executive Manager Standards Division on 18 March 2013.
Rules affected
CAR 210
Project management
Project Leader/s: Grant Mazowita
Project Sponsor/s: Peter Boyd Executive Manager Standards Division
Standards Officer/s: Grant Mazowita
Project Priority
High
Comments?? Ok, here is one – ‘Its sh#t’.
And I see Herr Boyd has a different lapdog on this project! He goes through project people like the Skull goes through stoogies.
Rumour is that those who do all of his work but produce bad results are cut loose, those who make him look good are kept along for the ride until no longer needed!
That’s today’s lesson from ‘CASA Management 101’.
The big mistake was having half based on FAR’s and half based on EASA regulations. EASA and FAA probably advised use one or the other we don’t care which one. It now looks like there is going to be middle reg’s to join the mismatches.
Is it true that maintenance reg’s were not going to accept APMA, which is a fundamental part of Part 21?
Since 2009, the initiative has been implemented by industry and oversighted by CASA.
How long has “oversighted” been a real word!
They might have been looking for “overseen”, or perhaps their considered opinion was that “oversight” might be far more appropriate. (as in “that was an oversight on CASA’s part”)
You have to love officialese, don’t you? Without derailing this into a grammar rant, people ‘have oversight’ of things these days, they don’t supervise them.
They also ‘sign off on’ things, rather than just sign them.
117.015 Safety-related surveys or questionnaires—holders of certain civil aviation authorisations
(1) CASA may, by written notice given to a person mentioned in subregulation (2), direct the person to:
(a) complete a safety-related survey or questionnaire by accurately answering all questions in the survey or questionnaire; and
(b) submit the completed survey or questionnaire to CASA within the time stated in the notice.
(2) For subregulation (1), the persons are the following:
(a) the holder of an AOC;
(b) a Part 141 operator who conducts flight training in aircraft.
(3) The person may, before the end of the time stated in the notice, apply in writing to CASA for an extension.
(4) CASA may, by written notice given to the person (the notice of extension), grant the extension.
(5) The person commits an offence if the person does not comply with the direction within:
(a) if CASA grants an extension under subregulation (4)—the time stated in the notice of extension; or
(b) if paragraph (a) does not apply—the time stated in the notice under subregulation (1).
Penalty: 50 penalty units.
(6) An offence against this regulation is an offence of strict liability.
How can this be done??
Quote:
(a) complete a safety-related survey or questionnaire by accurately answering all questions in the survey or questionnaire;
You all know the pass rate in the ATPL is about 50% – A questionaire, by definition does not have specific answers!!
According to the Rule of Law Institute, coercive powers are the new tool , and most sort after power for crazy bureaucrats, bureaucrazies and others.
Is 117.015 in fact, legal. ??
Does CASA have proper laws to legally blackmail a person into answering a questionaire with the threat of 50 penalty points under strict liability?.
Probably not..but BS rules.OK
What happened to the right to remain silent.? One doesn’t have to say anything that may incriminate yourself or others
You could make some deliberate or accidental wrong answers and you are still not off the hook because CASA specifies..”accurate answers”
Who decides whether an answer is “accurate” or not?.
Some office plonker who doesnt comprehend the meaning of the question either.? Or just doesnt like the answer, or it’s not considered “correct” in their opinion? WTF!
IMHO this is yet another example for a)… getting yr rights trampled,
..and b) … telling CASA to FCUK OFF.
Unless the Industry fights back, this sort of thing will get steadily worse.
As if it isnt bad enough already !
The rule of Law ? …or the “Law” of Rules. Your call.
How long has “oversighted” been a real word!
They might have been looking for “overseen”, or perhaps their considered opinion was that “oversight” might be far more appropriate. (as in “that was an oversight on CASA’s part”)
You forgot ‘over the hill’, which aptly describes the silly old tosspots at the helm of the ‘S.S CASA’……..
Here is the latest – Someone, please explain this to me.
Quote:
28 March 2013 Civil Aviation Order 48.1 Instrument 2013PART 1 GENERAL 1 Name of instrument This instrument is the Civil Aviation Order 48.1 Instrument 2013.
2 Commencement 2.1 This instrument commences on 30 April 2013. 2.2 Despite paragraph 2.1, the provisions of this instrument take effect for an AOC holder and an FCM in accordance with subsection 4.
3 Repeals
3.1 On 30 April 2016, each of the following Civil Aviation Orders (CAOs) is repealed, namely CAO 48.0, CAO 48.1, CAO 48.2, CAO 48.3 and CAO 48.4.
3.2 To avoid doubt, on 30 April 2016, each of the following Civil Aviation Amendment Orders (CAAOs) is repealed, namely CAAO (No. R47) 2004, CAAO (No. R48) 2004, CAAO (No. R49) 2004, CAAO (No. R50) 2004 and CAAO (No. R51) 2004.
3.3 To avoid doubt, on 30 April 2016, each CAO mentioned in paragraph 3.1, and each CAAO mentioned in paragraph 3.2, as continued in force by subregulation 335 (2) of CAR 1988 as if it had been made on 4 December 2013 under regulation 210A of CAR 1988, is repealed.
Here’s the latest “casa speak” released today [“”there is a need……..””, “….as a matter of interpretation…”,”…..minor formatting errors….”] etc, etc Obviously, not good enough for an organisation that has sepnt $250m plus and counting, and still needs work:
Quote:
Project MS 12/39
Amendments of the Part 66 Manual of Standards (MOS) – Training Requirements and minor amendment to Part 147 MOS – Facility Requirements Issue The following issues require addressing in this project.
There is a need to clarify the practical training elements required by a Part 66 LAME to gain a first type rating on their B1 or B2 licence.
As a matter of interpretation, the intent of the meaning of the expression “carry out maintenance” in subsection 20AB (2) of the Act is taken to also include the supervision, by a technically qualified person, of maintenance carried out by others. The Part 66 MOS does not currently provide that detail.
There is a need to clarify that category B1 licence holders have category A licence privileges in addition to their B1 privileges, but only for aircraft for which they hold a type rating.
There are some minor number formatting errors present in paragraphs 66.A.30 (e) and 66.A.45 (h) of the Part 66 MOS and requirement for clarification of the practical training options.
The identifying numbers for the units of competency required for a category or subcategory of licence listed in Appendix IV of the Part 66 MOS, and taken from the MEA07 Aeroskills training package require further updating to match the unit numbering that exists in the current version of the Aeroskills training package – MEA11 released on 25th January 2012.
There is a need to provide detail to Part 66 LAME licence holders of the Australian Qualifications Framework (AQF) competency unit(s) required for removal of a particular exclusion from a LAME licence.
There is a need to clarify in the Part 147 MOS that maintenance training organisations (MTO) that provide aircraft type training courses consisting of theory and practical elements of training, must also give students access to the appropriate aircraft type for the practical instruction appropriate to the training course.
Well, here’s an admission that casa got it wrong, in the current DAS emission:
Quote:
Drug and alcohol rules to be made clearer
A range of issues relating to the aviation drug and alcohol program are to be clarified to help the aviation industry better understand the regulatory requirements. CASA has established a project to review Part 99 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations, which sets out the drug and alcohol management requirements. These regulations took effect in March 2009, introducing random testing and the need for aviation organisations to have drug and alcohol management plans.
During the implementation of the new rules CASA has identified a number of issues that require regulatory changes to improve the way the drug and alcohol program operates. These changes will assist in reducing the cost of compliance to the aviation industry, as well as addressing resourcing issues. In turn, this will increase compliance with the drug and alcohol regulations while maintaining the same safety standards. Issues to be examined include the definition of a safety sensitive employee, the coverage of contractors under drug and alcohol management plans, the requirement for pre-deployment testing and improving the return to work model. The question of should there be a requirement for industry to conduct random testing will also be reviewed.
Find out more about the drug and alcohol review.
UITA, aint it grand. They created reg’s and Inflicted significant costs on the industry to fix a problem that didnt exist. Now they tell us they screwed up??
I believe CASA’s costs alone amound to around six million dollars for every person caught..very effective use of tax payers money!!
casa and the future – responsibility for their actions
Here we go again thornbird, just another little “fix”
Quote:
Project MS 13/08
Amendment to CASR Part 42 Manual of Standards (MOS) Issue A number of minor amendments to CASR Part 42 regulations, which deals with continuing airworthiness requirements for aircraft and aeronautical products, are in the final stage of making. These amendments have been found to be necessary since the introduction of CASR Part 42 regulations on 27 June 2011. CASA has already consulted with the aviation industry on these amendments.
Under the amendment a new regulation has been added to provide permission, under the Civil Aviation Act 1988 (the Act), for maintenance organisations to carry out maintenance on an Australian aircraft (to which Part 42 applies) outside Australian Territory. The permission is subject to the following conditions specified in the regulation:
the organisation is approved by the National Aviation Authority (NAA) of the foreign country to carry out the maintenance;
there is an agreement between CASA and the NAA that permits the organisation to carry out the maintenance;
the country is specified in Part 42 MOS;
the maintenance is carried out in accordance with the agreement.
An amendment to the Part 42 MOS is needed to include a list of countries that are parties to such agreements.
Another new regulation provides permission, under the Act, for maintenance organisations approved under the law of a foreign country to carry out maintenance on aeronautical products for Australian aircraft (to which Part 42 applies) outside Australian Territory, if the country is listed in Part 42 MOS. The current legislation provides acceptance of such maintenance by recognising authorised release certificates for maintenance carried out on the products under the law of a number of foreign countries; but exclusive permission to carry out the maintenance is necessary to comply with requirement of the Act. The recognised authorised release certificates and the related foreign countries are currently listed in Chapter 12 of Part 42 MOS. However, for regulatory completeness, Part 42 MOS will have to be amended to clarify that that these foreign countries are also permitted to carry out maintenance on aeronautical product for Australian aircraft (to which part 42 applies) outside Australian Territory. Project objective
The objective of the project is to amend Part 42 MOS to include a list of foreign countries that are permitted to carry out maintenance on:
Australian aircraft, to which Part 42 applies, outside Australian Territory; and
Aeronautical products for Australian aircraft, to which Part 42 applies, outside Australian territory.
UITA,
Oh good grief,
Now here’s an opportunity.
Since NZ has sensible FAA aligned maintenance regulations where maintenance costs around 2/3 less than in OZ illustrated by the boom
currently under way there,unlike here, where its sinking into oblivion.
Maybe there’s a chance to fix a few problems.
NZ is a tad too far away for everyone to get their maintenance done in a cost effective way.
Tassie however is do-able. Its economy is screwed since the greenies took over but!!
If Tassie was to secede from the commonwealth, adopt NZ regulations…
jeez they could forge a trans bass straight agreement!! everyone could head down there for maintenance…god the place would boom they could be lending money to the worlds greatest treasurer to prop up the australian economy
6.1 Before a category A licence holder can carry out and certify for any of the category A licence tasks listed within Appendix II of the Part 145 Manual of Standards (MOS) they must be type and task trained and authorised by the Part 145 AMO. Type and task training may be carried out by the Part 145 AMO or a Part 147 Maintenance Training Organisation (MTO). In either case, the way in which the category A is to be type and task trained and subsequently authorised needs to be described within the Part 145 AMO’s exposition.
6.2 A regulation 30 of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 (CAR) aircraft maintenance organisation – via instrument CASA 180/11 – Authorisation – category A maintenance authority holder in a CAR 30 organisation – Exemption – from regulation 66.130 of CASR 1998, may also utilise the services of category A licence holders to carry out and certify for any of the category A licence tasks listed within Appendix II of the Part 145 MOS. The Certificate of Approval (COA) holder needs to seek CASA delegations and authorisations to authorise category A personnel post type and task training.
Project MS 13/11
Allow an applicant for an CAMO to include other than Regular Public Transport (RPT) aircraft in the CAMO application Issue Aircraft operators with a CAMO may have responsibility to manage the airworthiness of non-RPT aircraft. Currently Part 42 of the CASR only applies to aircraft authorised to operate in RPT.
This current regulatory situation, in addition to the CAMO, requires the operator to have (for the aircraft to which Part 42 does not apply) a Maintenance Controller, Maintenance Control Manual and policy/procedures to meet CAR 1988 requirements.
If the higher regulatory requirement of a CAMO, on a purely voluntary basis, can be allowed to cover the operator’s non-RPT aircraft, the expected outcome is reduced costs, improved safety and efficiency gains. Legislative change, in an adjustment to the Part 42 application statement would be required to effect the proposed change. The change would allow the CAMO to add non-RPT aircraft to their approval – on a voluntary basis.
Senator MARK BISHOP—Now that [the Regulatory Reform Program] has been refocused away from a timely conclusion, what is the new completion date and how is it proposed to stop it drifting along forever?
Mr Byron—We do not have a firm completion date at this stage, but we should be able to generate that fairly soon. Mr Gemmell mentioned the refocus, I suppose, that I imposed on the organisation in late 2003-04 on getting the rules right and getting the quality. I found it necessary late last year to articulate in a bit more detail some guiding principles about how I wanted that done and who I wanted to be involved in the process.
I have issued some guiding principles on the formulation of new regulations and, if necessary, manuals of standards that accompany them. I have, I suppose, imposed on the system an additional layer of consultation, to assure me that the final draft rules that I send to the minister for consideration by the parliament are the right ones and that they address very carefully risks that are real and necessary issues that must be picked up by regulations. I felt it was necessary to do that to make sure that I have the right rules. I am not going to put my signature to anything that I do not think adequately addresses safety issues.
Senator MARK BISHOP—When do you think those regulations will go to the minister?
Mr Byron—I anticipate we would start sending some of them from about the middle of this year. I do not see this delaying the overall program excessively. We have an action item to develop a plan to forward to the minister about when we plan to have them to the minister, and I assume that plan would be done in the next couple of months. I would be hopeful that it would not be long after early 2006 that most of the draft rules are delivered to the minister.
[My bolding]
According to Table C of CASA’s Cost Recovery Impact Statement (available here: http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_asset…final_2013.pdf) the estimated costs of “Safety Standards” “Development” for FY 12-13 was $18,077,908.
A conservative estimate of the cost, so far, of the regulatory reform program is $200 million.
A rough estimate of the pages of regulations produced in the last 20 years is 2,000.
That’s about $100,000 per page.
Safety improvements arising from 2,000 pages of new regulations? Not obvious to me.
Efficiency improvements for industry arising from the 2,000 pages of new regulations? Not obvious to me.
Clarity achieved? Quite the opposite.
When will it end? Given the rate of ‘progress’ so far and the list of ‘active’ projects still to be completed, never.
The regulatory reform program will drift around forever.
This Frankenstein must be put out of its misery.
[A plea to potential posters: Please don’t post material that will get this thread locked.]
I know I’ve said this just recently in another thread, but…
Creampuff,
Excellent post. The last bit of the quote in your bold could have been lifted from Sir Humphries from ‘Yes Prime Minister’.
But….
How will change be effected? B!tc#!ng about it on line here? I don’t see that making much difference?
As pointed out on another thread, there is a ‘contact the director’ link on the casa website (which I have used). I suspect that will be given as much heed as the guy asking for spare change out the front of the casa building in Canberra.
I guess it’s a start though.
But, what is the answer? How do the people that these (over) regulations affect the most, bring about a change?
Creampuff, you always post facts that we already know – Reg reform has taken almost 25 years, has cost $200 million, will never be completed and requires neutering. Fair enough. But we already know all this.
Whenever somebody posts a suggested fix, reasonable argument, something out of left field, or heavens above something that contains riddles they are either shut down, torn asunder or ridiculed. Fair enough.
Why don’t you tell us how you would suggest fixing this CAsA regulatory reform issue as well as the ATsB? It’s a genuine question, not a piss take and with no strings attached. Something like a 20 or 30 step plan or more if need be, detailed and workable (and without riddles). Because a number of us have tried many angles over the years and to date have achieved very little, acknowledged.
Your work may also assist the independent Senators considering some of them are proving to be the only ones who give a rats testicle about aviation matters that don’t pertain to business class seating and chairmans lounge priveledges.
004/Oleo
P.S
I have tried very very hard to ‘self moderate’ my comment and refrain from emotive language, riddles, direct insults at CAsA personnel or basically speak my mind fully. It doesn’t fit within the context of who I am, but out of respect for this thread I will continue to show restraint.
But I only see that doing a fraction of what needs be done…? Any senators that support aviation need a very public cause to hang their hat on.
As Creampuff quoted in the original post, a senator (Mark Bishop), asked a direct question with very little room for interpretation or ambiguity, and got a load of political double speak about scheduling a meeting to get a plan to tell them about their plan, and that won’t happen for a few months?!
When truckies don’t like how things are being thrust upon them, bam, road blockade of Parliament House, go slow, news coverage, 60 minutes cover story etc etc.
Nurses down tools (bedpans?) for a stop work meeting and it gets the first 5 minutes of nightly news on all channels, and they get change effected.
Now, I’m well aware that pilots haven’t had the best of luck with large scale industrial action (pilots strike, qantas grounding) but something more needs to happen to make an essentially unaccountable, unelected public servant, change this dogs breakfast of regulation into something simple pilots can understand!
I can see the AFAP pilot jobs website of the future if this continues –
Quote:
Pilot wanted.
MECIR
1000 multi
Masters degree in law with a 55% case win ratio
QC preferred
What is needed is a set of cost and efficiency benchmarks between CASA, and Canada, New Zealand, US FAA, European union and possibly other countries for their air regulator, ATSB and Airservices equivalent.
The numbers that need to be calculated include off the top of my head:
Regulatory cost per aircraft.
Regulatory cost per:
– Aircraft hour flown
– Miles flown.
– per flight.
– per passenger km.
Representative aircraft operating costs per hour, preferably broken down by cost category
These need to be calculated per year, per decade, Also in long term moving averages.
The data needs to be referenced as to source.
Then there needs to be some discussion of the comparisons and results.
If Australia shows up well as an efficient regulator – well, you have just lost your argument about how bad the Australian system really is.
How do costs compare? That should tell you who is screwing who. We can then delve into how and why they are screwing you..
If, perchance, as some of you suspect, the data shows that CASA, ATSB, etc are bloated non performers, be prepared to discuss the following statement:
“We aren’t really bloated, it’s just that Australia is different”.
“The data is wrong”.
“Our costs include stuff that others don’t”.
“But we’ve already changed, your data is too old”.
“It’s not our fault, the Government made us do it this way”.
I first did part of one of these for Econometrician Robin Hocking who was instrumental in destroying the Two airline domestic policy.
At Coopers and Lybrand I did this for Telecom (Telstras predecessor) that conclusively demonstrated how bloated that institution had become. The Board didn’t like that result, unfortunately for me.
With a little bit of luck, ICAO will have done all the data collection for you, the International Telecommunication Union certainly had it by country when I “did” Telecom.
Unless and until you can produce these facts and a cogent argument for change, and the money it will save, you are wasting your time.
Airservices Deliberately Avoids Benchmarking and Comparisons?
I note that Airservices are NOT a member of CANSO (Civil AIr Navigation Services Organisation) who have been benchmarking their performance against each other for years.
Since memberhsip and benchmarking would no doubt entail lots of visits to CANSO HQ in Holland, one has to wonder if the potential pain caused by joining the benchmarking exercise outweighed the joy inherent in all those overseas trips?
I dunno Sunny, a simple page count aught to resolve the matter…..
It’s not so much that the ‘reform’ has been costly or taken a while to get to critical mass. For mine, it’s that there is no ‘reform’ to speak of; we seem to have the same old stuff, re hashed and larded with traps for the unwary. All that seems to have been done is to roll the CAO up into the CAR, warts and all, tighten the loop holes and launch.
I don’t see simple, clearly defined outcome based resolution i.e. R101 – Don’t run out of fuel. The onus is then on the company (individual) to produce a fuel policy within the prescribed minimums which ensures that silence will not prevail. The rules are basically simple enough.
What I find is that it’s not the “rules” per se that cause the problems; but the application. It’s a simple enough matter to write an operational policy for compliance; but the monster is revealed when some FOI or AWI has had a blue with the missus and decides that today, you are the anti Christ of aviation – then the fun begins; ask Quadrio, Butson or Kilen, they will explain your own elegant expression – Embuggerance in robust, basic Anglo Saxon.
Reform the regulator, the rules will surely follow.
Last edited by Kharon; 7th Aug 2013 at 06:48. Reason: No Minnie, we are not ploughing through that lot – Kettle on ?
What is needed is a set of cost and efficiency benchmarks between CASA, and Canada, New Zealand, US FAA, European union and possibly other countries for their air regulator, ATSB and Airservices equivalent.
Sunny,
Why didn’t we think of that during the currency of the PAP/CASA Review?? — Hang on, I remember, we did!!
I still have copies of all the documents somewhere for Part 91, where we did (item by item) a comparison, side by side spreadsheet, of the equivalent sub-regulation from (from memory), as well as AU,NZ, CA,US,UK and ICAO.
Not surprisingly, beside quite a number of Australian regulations, some or all of the other countries’ lists were a blank space.
One of the ones that sticks in my mind was the AU regulations/orders about dropping things from aircraft (you know the ones — they put paid to Sunday morning flour bombing and streamer cutting competitions at the local aero club) AU — about 9 pages of regulation and orders, most others countries, one or two paragraphs, plus advisory material.
The Review recommendation was a one paragraph regulation, outcome based, with advisory material as to how to comply.
9 pages of regulatory material reduces to about 30 easily understandable words.
Later, long after the PAP had gone, Bruce Byron actually produced a policy directive, binding on CASA staff, as to how all rules were to be justified — based entirely on the principles used by the PAP/CASA Review — which in themselves were nothing new, just lifted straight from the recommendations of the Productivity Commission/Office of Best Practice Regulation handbook, the then Australia/NZ Standard for risk management, and other similar sources from Attorney-General, Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, etc.
As I recall (it’s no longer on the CASA web site) the first requirement of the Byron directive was to establish that there was an air safety problem that required a regulation (as opposed to less draconian methods of securing compliance). If that was established ( as opposed to something that was for administrative bureaucratic convenience — a regulatory nono that CASA routinely ignores ) the next step was quantitative cost/benefit analysis (not cost/ effectiveness — CASA can’t tell the difference), including factoring the CASA claimed “benefits” for “proponent bias”, which various Canberra based guidelines put at up to 50%, ie; the claimed financial/ societal etc. benefits of a measure are commonly overstated by up to 50%.
Unsurprisingly, by this stage, a large number of regulations were knocked out, to the distress of those in CASA who believe “regulation” is the only answer (as in the new proposals for SAR/EMS operations NPRM — to be regulated to the greatest possible extent — as RPT).
By this stage, draft regulations were starting to look remarkably like NZ or CA or FAA — but simpler and easier to read.
One “person” in the the CASA Office of Legal Counsel actually put forward the proposition that “outcome based” rules, that were Government policy, would not work in Australian aviation, because, unlike NZ/CA/US/UK. neither CASA nor the Australia aviation industry were “mature enough” for anything other than highly detailed and absolutely prescriptive regulation.
As we well know now, all of the above drafts has been dropped — it is even claimed now that such activities as risk justification and cost/benefit analysis are contrary to the Civil, Aviation Act 1988. Strangely, all the lawyers involved over the years, including several lawyers on the Board, including a Supreme Court Judge as Chairman, apparently missed what has apparently been so blindingly obvious to the present day CASA Board and management.
As for ATC, have a look at the Airspace Act, and particularly the first “airspace directive”, signed off by Truss. Now emasculated under the present Government — and look at the mess Airservices are in!
It is a very sad story, that has cost Australia far more than the $2-300M directly spent by CASA, we have lost a large segment of the industry, either gone offshore or just gone.
And here was Albo, just last week, at the CAPA conference, saying what a great place Australia is, to do aviation business, with all these beaut. country aerodromes where we could be training foreign students.
I wonder why the training industry didn’t think of that — Hang On!! , I remember, they did!!
—- but have been largely put out of business, with excessive costs and regulation, compared to competitor countries. CASA isn’t the only offender here, there are plenty of other Australian government entities who have done their bit to help boost pilot training in NZ/US/CA/etc.
Sub contract the entire regulatory function to the kiwi’s. They seem to do much better, and the USA always gets the “American” label as being bad for you. So if we took $200M over 10 years and invested it in NZ would that not be good for both countries?
Sounds silly I know, but how hard would it actually be to do, compared to the collective hardship we suffer now?
I once thought it was a silly idea, but the more I talk to smart people in industry the more it sounds like the right thing to do.
Jaba,
Once again, I agree with you, including not just the “regulations”. but a re-write of the Act along NZ lines, particularly S.14 of the NZ Act, Functions of the Minister.
Tootle pip!!
If they must write the regs to cover all legal possibilities (I’m sifting through draft CASR 161 and its associated ‘explanations’ as we speak), why don’t they produce straight-talking guidebooks or similar to go along with them?
Have a plain language ‘what can and can’t I do’ guide for each main set of rules, with clear disclaimers along the lines of:
‘this isn’t the regs, it’s just a guide, so check the real thing before you act.’
That way, you could be quickly and simply reminded of the basic requirements and directed to the appropriate legislation for further reading, rather than having to sift through miles of garble to ferret out the good gen.
I know CASA make lots of info products, some of which are pretty good, but wouldn’t it be great to have concise, clear guides coming from the source of the legislation explaining what they’re on about?
Sarcs, when Macair went tits up, the QLD government hit the panick button as to how they would service western Queensland routes that were serviced by the now defunct airline. The paperwork I have seen indicates that to cover this gap the Queensland government approached Skytrans and basically handed them the work. Fort Fumble was then asked to do a risk assessment on each port (desktop only due to time constraints) and I believe between 8 – 11 ports were fully assessed in less than one working week. (I am sure an FOI request would confirm all the dates, locations and details in a comprehensive transparent way. Perhaps all the pages will be there as well?) Anybody who is skilled in the methodology of conducting comprehensive risk assessments would know that up to 11 ports in under 5 working days, via desktop for an operator who wasn’t flying there already, had different aircraft type and a host of other differences would know that this is a crock and an impossible task. Paperwork was filled out simply to provide an audit trail that the process had been undertaken prior to operation. A box ticking exercise and another display of FF jumping to attention when a minister or state government tells it to.
As for the Lockhart investigation, your comments are precise Sarcs. Alan Stray may have been at the ATsB at the time, but it is the events beyond his control that I refer to that I express dismay at. Alan certainly knew CAsA was a two bit shonky outfit not to be trusted, and subsequent inquiries have proven that. CAsA escaped a pineapple over Lockhart, and that fact was beyond Alan’s power and influence range. After all, Alan was only a very small piece of a giant jigsaw. Even in that time period Messr Stray had internal politics knocking at his door. Honesty and integrity are not the favored approach when Ministers and bureaucracies are not painted in robust light.
Last edited by 004wercras; 13th Aug 2013 at 13:44.
#casa regulatory reform
#casa regulatory reform
The changes in the regulations are, as we know, not well worded. This is one of the most problematic issues with how #casa ‘manages’ aviation.
This, combined with the findings of the #asrr, which gave the unblinding view that the aviation industry had little trust in #casa.
The following thread, which is unavailable to normal viewers, is reproduced here and gives serious credence to the above view.
Until Mark Skidmore and the #casa Board make very big inroads into the matter of TRUST, #casa will not be viewed as a trusted partner in aviation.
We were told that the new regs would improve things aviation.
Try this for a Sir Humphrey!!
11.020 Effect of this Subpart
The requirements of this Subpart in relation to an application for a particular kind of authorisation are in addition to any requirements of the Part or Subpart that deals with the kind of authorisation.
11.025 Application of Part to authorised persons
If these Regulations allow an application for an authorisation to be made to an authorised person, a reference in this Part to CASA includes, in relation to such an application, an authorised person to whom such an application is made.
Well???
Penalty: 50 penalty units.
(2) If the pilot, or group of associated pilots becomes aware of, or realises, or detects, or discovers or finds that he, or she, or they, are or have been beginning to understand the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations, they must immediately, within three (3) days notify CASA in writing.
Penalty: 50 penalty units.
(3) Upon receipt of the above mentioned notice of impending comprehension, CASA will immediately rewrite the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations in such a manner as to eliminate any further comprehension hazards.
(4) CASA may, at their option, require the offending pilot, or pilots, to attend remedial instruction in the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations until such time that the pilot is too confused to be capable of understanding anything.
(5) An offence against subregulation (1) or (2) is an offence of strict liability.
Note For strict liability, see section 6.1 of the Criminal Code.
Incredible, aren’t they?
My guess is they draft something like this:
“The pilot in command must ensure all relevant covers and safety flags are removed and stowed before taking off.”
then send it to the legal team, who change it to:
“An individual who, for the purposes of these paragraphs and sub-paragraphs, is authorised by an organisation, or is him or herself empowered to authorise him or herself to operate an aeroplane or rotorcraft as pilot-in-command, shall not allow that aeroplane or rotorcraft to move from a resting condition for the purposes of leaving the ground or water, or in the case of an amphibian aeroplane or rotorcraft, ground and/or water as appropriate, unless that individual has ensured that each item (including but not limited to covers, protective devices, streamers, and flags) made or purchased for the purpose of protecting essential items of equipment (including but not limited to probes, vents, intakes, exhausts, wicks, cooling systems and drains) has been removed from its operative position and placed in a container, locker, pocket or restraint approved for the purpose of holding that item, or group of items, for the duration of the flight and with a degree of security appropriate for the longitudinal, lateral and vertical accelerative forces that may be experienced at any time during that flight, caused by either the normal motion of the aircraft or the motion of the atmosphere as it impacts on that aircraft.”
No more Roman numerals either!!!Bbbzbzbzbzbzbzbzbzbzzzzzz
Last edited by Mr.Buzzy; 17th Jul 2012 at 11:13.
Compare our many books of regs and rules to the simple and plain English USA publication – FAR/AIMS.
I’m sure we can all nut out the meaning of regs like this given time, but it must be possible to lay them out in such a way that the meanings are more readily apparent.
That’s hardly simple English. As I read it, it’s saying “there is (or may be) another Part or Subpart dealing with the kind of authorisation in question, so be aware the requirements in this subpart are not the only ones.”
Something like that that tells you what they’re actually driving at in a straightforward way would help immeasurably.
Maybe we need an official book that tells you in plain language what your responsibilities are, as well as the legalese book that applies in a court of law.
I don’t mean something that a third party such as a flying school or maintenance training organisation writes out as their interpretation of the regs, but something released by CASA that’s aimed to translate the legal stuff into real world language (with the clear caveat that the legal stuff is binding). A kind of ‘what the hell we meant when we wrote this section’ guide.
Last edited by Arm out the window; 17th Jul 2012 at 13:38.
What does ‘cross-country time’ mean for the purpose of meeting the aeronautical experience requirements for a sport pilot certificate with powered parachute privileges?
Your time starts….NOW:
(i) Except as provided in paragraphs (b)(4)(ii) through (b)(4)(vi) of this section, time acquired during flight—
(A) Conducted by a person who holds a pilot certificate;
(B) Conducted in an aircraft;
(C) That includes a landing at a point other than the point of departure; and
(D) That involves the use of dead reckoning, pilotage, electronic navigation aids, radio aids, or other navigation systems to navigate to the landing point.
(ii) For the purpose of meeting the aeronautical experience requirements (except for a rotorcraft category rating), for a private pilot certificate (except for a powered parachute category rating), a commercial pilot certificate, or an instrument rating, or for the purpose of exercising recreational pilot privileges (except in a rotorcraft) under §61.101 (c), time acquired during a flight—
(A) Conducted in an appropriate aircraft;
(B) That includes a point of landing that was at least a straight-line distance of more than 50 nautical miles from the original point of departure; and
(C) That involves the use of dead reckoning, pilotage, electronic navigation aids, radio aids, or other navigation systems to navigate to the landing point.
(iii) For the purpose of meeting the aeronautical experience requirements for a sport pilot certificate (except for powered parachute privileges), time acquired during a flight conducted in an appropriate aircraft that—
(A) Includes a point of landing at least a straight line distance of more than 25 nautical miles from the original point of departure; and
(B) Involves, as applicable, the use of dead reckoning; pilotage; electronic navigation aids; radio aids; or other navigation systems to navigate to the landing point.
(iv) For the purpose of meeting the aeronautical experience requirements for a sport pilot certificate with powered parachute privileges or a private pilot certificate with a powered parachute category rating, time acquired during a flight conducted in an appropriate aircraft that—
(A) Includes a point of landing at least a straight line distance of more than 15 nautical miles from the original point of departure; and
(B) Involves, as applicable, the use of dead reckoning; pilotage; electronic navigation aids; radio aids; or other navigation systems to navigate to the landing point.
(v) For the purpose of meeting the aeronautical experience requirements for any pilot certificate with a rotorcraft category rating or an instrument-helicopter rating, or for the purpose of exercising recreational pilot privileges, in a rotorcraft, under §61.101(c), time acquired during a flight—
(A) Conducted in an appropriate aircraft;
(B) That includes a point of landing that was at least a straight-line distance of more than 25 nautical miles from the original point of departure; and
(C) That involves the use of dead reckoning, pilotage, electronic navigation aids, radio aids, or other navigation systems to navigate to the landing point.
(vi) For the purpose of meeting the aeronautical experience requirements for an airline transport pilot certificate (except with a rotorcraft category rating), time acquired during a flight—
(A) Conducted in an appropriate aircraft;
(B) That is at least a straight-line distance of more than 50 nautical miles from the original point of departure; and
(C) That involves the use of dead reckoning, pilotage, electronic navigation aids, radio aids, or other navigation systems.
(vii) For a military pilot who qualifies for a commercial pilot certificate (except with a rotorcraft category rating) under §61.73 of this part, time acquired during a flight—
(A) Conducted in an appropriate aircraft;
(B) That is at least a straight-line distance of more than 50 nautical miles from the original point of departure; and
(C) That involves the use of dead reckoning, pilotage, electronic navigation aids, radio aids, or other navigation systems.
A 600 word definition that starts with the word “except”.
It’s not simple English.
Get a grip Blackie.
Proposed Civil Aviation Regulation ActRule 1000(a). No pilot or pilots, or persons, or persons acting on the direction or suggestion or supervision of the pilot or pilots may try, or make attempt to try, to comprehend or understand any or all, in whole or in part, of the herein mentioned Civil Aviation Regulations, except as authorised by the Director or an agent appointed by the Director.Rule 1000(b). If the pilot or group of associated pilots become aware of, or realises, or detects, or discovers, or finds that he, or she, or they, are, or have been, beginning to understand the Civil Aviation Regulations, they must immediately within three (3) days notify in writing the Director.
Rule 1000(c). Upon receipt of the abovementioned notice of impending comprehension, the Director will immediately re-write the Civil Aviation Regulations in such a manner as to eliminate any further comprehension hazards.
Rule 1000(d). The Director may, at his or her option, require the offending pilot, or pilots, to attend remedial instruction in the Civil Aviation Regulations until such time that the pilot, or pilots, are too confused to be capable of understanding anything.
Last edited by DancingDog; 17th Jul 2012 at 20:56.
se Fice re Caper and “usually”..or was it “generally”.”terrain”…. a tract of country/land. No mention of the liquid stuff there.
“water”….. a liquid compound of oxygen and hydrogen. No mention of any hard stuff there.
How a word, and/ or the use of, is interpreted can decide whether someone gets hung…or not.
The psuedo-legals that cobble up these crap regs are failing the requirement that the regs must be written for the layman/user/us…and not just legal vomitus for lawyers to play with.
The bureaucrapic way is “complexitization”…creates more work, takes more time, costs more money..and the KISS principle is given the kiss-off.
The time’s still ticking on the question: What does ‘cross-country time’ mean for the purpose of meeting the aeronautical experience requirements for a sport pilot certificate with powered parachute privileges?
It couldn’t be that hard to interpret the oh-so-simple FAR definition I quoted.
By the way, your Australian regulations have really complicated one (2(10)) that says:
(a) the vertical distance of a level or a point, or if an object is specified, that object considered as a point, measured from the datum specified in connection with the reference, or where no datum is specified, measured from the ground or water;
Is that you Kevin Rudd?
Bbbzbzbzbzbzbzbzbzbzb
The problem for simple private pilots like me is that I have not a snowballs chance in hell of understanding the finer points of the regulations, let alone the arcane circumlocutions and operating contortions necessary to comply, in fact I even doubt that compliance is possible in some circumstances.
By way of example, my understanding is that it is a criminal offence to start an engine without switching on a red anticollision beacon – if such beacon is fitted to the aircraft.
It is therefore a legitimate method of avoiding the possibility of committing this offence by not fitting a beacon (experimental or RAA), or causing the beacon to be removed if this option is legal for a certified aircraft.
What if such beacon is unserviceable? Is this a defence?
The net result is that as a private pilot I can only operate under the following assumptions.
1. Follow common sense.
2. Avoid possible interaction with CASA on the grounds that CASA will always find a “point of order” on which to prosecute you if it feels like it on the day.
By way of example – luggage restraints in a C172. Do tie down straps or cargo nets require certification? What is the lesser penalty here? Unrestrained baggage? The fitting and use of unapproved equipment? (eg a tiedown strap purchased from Bunnings)
That’s exactly why they need to make the regs more accessible, perhaps with a ‘FAQ’ section, seeing as you can get them online easily these days.
Q. Can I fit commonly available cargo restraints (eg cargo nets purchased from hardware stores and the like) in the baggage compartment of my light aircraft?
A. Yes, as long as they are capable of restraining the cargo with a 4 g vertical acceleration, 2 g longitudinally … (or whatever the real answer is). Restraints should be tested with a spring balance to establish a maximum weight capability. Refer to CAAP bla bla bla
I asked a simple question, Do I still have a SCPL?
I refer to your telephone conversation with Diane Shelback on xxxx regarding the validity of your Senior Commercial Pilot Licence.I am pleased to confirm that your Senior Commercial Pilot Licence Number xxxxxx is valid. This means that you are Authorised to exercise all of the privileges of this licence as specified in Civil Aviation Regulation 56(1)(a)(iv) of Statutory Rule 1988 No.158.The grounds upon which this declaration is made are:
a) your Senior Commercial Pilot Licence is one to which Regulation 43 of Statutory Rule No 279 of 1992 applies.
b) although you have been issued with a First Class Airline Transport Pilot Licence, your First Class Airline Transport Pilot Licence is not a “new air transport pilot (aeroplane) licence” as mentioned in paragraph 43.2(b) of subregulation 43.2 of Statutory Rule No 279 of 1992. The significance of this point is that the issue of your ATPL has not nullified your SCPL. The considerations which lead to your ATPL not being regarded as a new ATPL are:
i) the term “new air transport pilot (aeroplane) licence” is not defined in Statutory Rule No 279 of 1992.
ii) a comparison of the definitions of new and old licences in subregulation 35.1 of that Statutory Rule shows that the determining factor as to whether a licence is a new or old licence is the regulation under which the licence was issued; licences issued under subregulation 55B of the old regulations are old licences, and licences issued under new subregulation 5.09(1) are new licences
iii) your ATPL was issued in xxxx, which date was before new subregulation 5.09(1) existed, and therefore your ATPL, is not a new licence.
In regard to your old Senior Commercial Pilot Licence, my duty of care obligee me to alert you to the following aspects:
i) while the licence is valid and you may exercise all of the privileges of the licence, these privilege do not include privileges pertaining to any rating that was endorsed on the licence unless that rating has been renewed and is current. Under the provisions of regulation 59 of the Civil Aviation Regulations of Statutory Rule 1988 No 158, ratings expired at the effluxion of the time periods specified in Civil Aviation Orders. I mention this particularly because in the Civil Aviation Act 1988 a licence is defined as including any rating that is endorsed on the licence. I do not want you to be under the misconception that the privileges of the licence include privileges pertaining to a rating endorsed on the licence; and ii) subregulation 66(2) of the Civil Aviation Regulations of Statutory Rule 1988 No 158 specified that “the types and categories of aircraft for which a licence is valid shall be specified by endorsement in the licence”. This means that you may fly, as a privilege of your Senior Commercial Pilot Licence No. xxxxx, only those aircraft that are endorsed in that licence. An endorsement of an aircraft type in another licence, (e.g. your First Class Airline Transport Pilot Licence), or in your pilot log-book under the provisions of CAR 5.23 (2), does not entitle you to fly that aircraft as a privilege of your Senior Commercial Pilot Licence. An endorsement in your pilot log-book does not apply to your SCPL because under tho terms of CAR Part 5, a SCPL is not a flight crew licence (see CAR 2, and CAR
5.08).
Should you have any further queries in this matter, please do not hesitate to contact Graeme Smith, telephone (06) 268 4393 or facsimile (06) 268 4426.
Yours sincerely,
BOB COOK
Manager Flight Crew Licensing
Directorate of Aviation Safety Regulation
It is preposterous to postulate that there are any obfuscative passages in the Aviation Regulations of this fine nation, and I will expand on this prima-facie observation prior to the effluxion of my lunch break.
What’s the matter Blackie missing your old combatant Kharon? Don’t worry mate the ghost of K is still watching over you whilst you drown your sorrows at the local, I’m sure he’ll make the return ferry trip when your time is up!
Meanwhile Blackie it appears your still rubbing shoulders with Creamy at the ‘Mutual Blinkered Horse Brigade’….that should keep you somewhat amused between opening and last drinks..cause other than Frank you might as well be the invisible bloke in that musty corner of the bar!
Most pilot’s can’t spell ironie. Ironye. Ironboard, (fkucit), let alone understand what it means. Can you please rephrase that?
Red is on the left if you are sitting in the aeroplane, that means port because it’s the same colour, green is what you look like if you fly in black clouds. Sorry just thinking out aloud…. Oh fkuck that to hard. Which brings me to another point…. but that’s off topic. I don’t remember eating that!
Arm out the window; You’re Kevin Rudd, aren’t you!
As for the subject of this thread; A Lawyer aquaintance of mine once spent a few hours going through my copy of the ANOs as they were at the time and afterwards stated that in some instances only a Lawyer would be able to understand them.
He also claimed that he could fine several direct contradictions, ie one reg says no you can’t and another reg said yes you can!
And how much did you say has been spent on the rewrite so far, Taily?
Never mention him and me in the same sentence! Actually, Ruddy would probably say a few words in Mandarin as well, to add to the overall effect…
And the eternal refrain from the bureaucrats and lawyers:
“It means what it says”.
Moderator
Two months short of 23 years and they admit to burning over $200 million on the exercise. Don’t worry, it is only our insignificant tax money.
As I read it, it’s saying “there is (or may be) another Part or Subpart dealing with the kind of authorisation in question, so be aware the requirements in this subpart are not the only ones.”
Exactly, no ambiguityBlackhand said: So, why doesn’t it say that?”Plain English” is the instruction given to Parliamentary Counsel and it ought apply to whomever is drafting this stuff.
I’m a lawyer and I had to scratch my head to work out what the hell the author was saying. It shouldn’t take a precedent in the High Court to interpret something that should be relatively straight forward.
The definition given to particular words, such as “terrain” should be dealt with in a definitions section if the ordinary common meaning isn’t deemed sufficient although, God help us, it ought be clear enough.
kaz
kaz
Last edited by kaz3g; 20th Jul 2012 at 11:52.
A thousand apologies Sir.
So I wonder how the sales of BMWs and Porsches have been in Canberra?
CASA have allowed the legal fraternity to get theor claws into something that should be reasonably simple to understand and work with, and turn it into something that requires a lawyer to navigate to. How fortuitous for them!
However as Blackhand hinted at, isn’t this just another symptom of the increasingly litigious society we live in? The vast majority of us are law abiding and sensible aviators, but it appears the regs are engineered to cater for the minority of idiots that fcuk it up for the rest of us.
Now that’s funny!
CASA have allowed the legal fraternity to get theor claws into something …
The lack of understanding evident in that statement is breathtaking but, unfortunately, ubiquitous.
CASA is created by one sentence in a law passed by the parliament.
CASA’s powers and functions are specified in laws passed by the parliament.
Delegated legislation must be made in accordance with laws passed by the parliament and the policies of the government of the day, then tabled for disallowance by the parliament. Regulations are made by the Governor-General, on recommendation from the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure. Only CAOs and small number of other legislative instruments are made by CASA. But they all have to be made, published and tabled in accordance with the same laws and policies.
The reason every aspect of daily life in Australia is being slowly regulated to death is that Australians keep electing dumb and dumber governments who are very happy to keep pumping out laws as fast as they can be made. Governments consider the making of a law to be an ‘achievement’ and ‘progress’. (Look at what the current government claims to be among its successes: the passage of thousands of pages of primary legislation that ultimately do only one of two things: tax the populace or create new criminal offences.)
The reason governments get away with it is because punters like CSD blame the regulators.
Last edited by Creampuff; 21st Jul 2012 at 09:50.
CIVIL AVIATION REGULATIONS 1988 – REG 157
Low flying(1) The pilot in command of an aircraft must not fly the aircraft over:
(a) any city, town or populous area at a height lower than 1,000 feet; or
(b) any other area at a height lower than 500 feet.
Penalty: 50 penalty units.
(2) An offence against subregulation (1) is an offence of strict liability.
Note For strict liability , see section 6.1 of the Criminal Code .
(3) A height specified in subregulation (1) is the height above the highest point of the terrain, and any object on it, within a radius of:
(a) in the case of an aircraft other than a helicopter — 600 metres; or
(b) in the case of a helicopter — 300 metres;
from a point on the terrain vertically below the aircraft.
(3A) Paragraph (1) (a) does not apply in respect of a helicopter flying at a designated altitude within an access lane details of which have been published in the AIP or NOTAMS for use by helicopters arriving at or departing from a specified place.
(4) Subregulation (1) does not apply if:
(a) through stress of weather or any other unavoidable cause it is essential that a lower height be maintained; or
(b) the aircraft is engaged in private operations or aerial work operations, being operations that require low flying, and the owner or operator of the aircraft has received from CASA either a general permit for all flights or a specific permit for the particular flight to be made at a lower height while engaged in such operations; or
(c) the pilot of the aircraft is engaged in flying training and flies over a part of a flying training area in respect of which low flying is authorised by CASA under subregulation 141 (1); or
(d) the pilot of the aircraft is engaged in a baulked approach procedure, or the practice of such procedure under the supervision of a flight instructor or a check pilot; or
(e) the aircraft is flying in the course of actually taking-off or landing at an aerodrome; or
(f) the pilot of the aircraft is engaged in:
(i) a search; or
(ii) a rescue; or
(iii) dropping supplies;
in a search and rescue operation; or
(g) the aircraft is a helicopter:
(i) operated by, or for the purposes of, the Australian Federal Police or the police force of a State or Territory; and
(ii) engaged in law enforcement operations; or
(h) the pilot of the aircraft is engaged in an operation which requires the dropping of packages or other articles or substances in accordance with directions issued by CASA.AND the comparative FAR:
§ 91.119 Minimum safe altitudes: General.
Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:
(a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.
(b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft.
(c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.
(d) Helicopters. Helicopters may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section if the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface. In addition, each person operating a helicopter shall comply with any routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the Administrator.
Just a bit easier to understand
Yep, a lot easier to understand and not a mention of Penalty units, Criminal codes, police, public floggings or lethal injection either!
bbbbbbbbzzzzzzzzzzzzbbbbbbbbbbbzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Ooo-err!
Looks like I’ve done gone and ruffled the wig of the resident lawyer. Well, it’s not the first time I’ve fallen afoul of the legal fraternity!
C.P.,
Firstly, thanks for the explanation of the legislative process. 27 years ago the rule book was less than half the size it is now. My bleat about having to access the regs on the AG’s website was but pining for a simpler time. Back then a pilot was judged by their ability to operate an aircraft safely and efficiently both on the ground and in the air (anybody else remember that definition?!). These days it appears that the standard is now being able to quote chapter and verse from the ever-increasing and unnecessarily complex rules that seem to be designed to catch you out.
Agree – mostly. However you have to concede that the increasingly litigious nature of our society is a key factor here. CASA are just tin-plating their asses here. And guess what – they’re not Robinson Crusoe in that regard.
Not just the regulators. And don’t call me a punt.
No, it wasn’t just about that. You blamed CASA for that outcome:
CASA hasn’t ‘allowed’ anything. CASA has continued to do what it’s told to do or – perhaps more importantly – what it’s allowed to get away with, by its political lords and masters.
You need to understand the metaphor about monkeys and organ grinders to understand my point.
Where is your data to demonstrate our society is ‘increasingly litigious’?
OK then.
So you agree with me then?
Oh you cannot be serious (spoken in my best John McEnroe voice)! You want “data”? Try the media for a start. Seems like every day there’s a story about someone sueing someone else. It’s becoming a national sport. I’ve even been threatened with legal action myself for proffering a professional opinion. They didn’t have the guts to follow it through though.
Last edited by Captain Sand Dune; 22nd Jul 2012 at 09:33.
Millions of Lawyers can’t have chosen the wrong profession, surely?
I guess there must be a need for them.
You can’t tell the difference between CASA being allowed to do something, and CASA allowing something to be done, CSD? I suppose I should no longer be surprised at the number of pilots who are evidently functionally illiterate.
So ‘the media’ is your data, CSD? That would be the same media that are roundly criticized on PPRuNe, on the grounds of inaccuracy, whenever reports about matters relating to aviation are published?
‘Millions of lawyers’, eh FA? Another one based on ‘the media’?
CP
‘Millions of lawyers’, eh FA? Another one based on ‘the media’?
Maybe a little grand but based on the admissions adverts there surely isn’t a shortage , and they all need to earn a buck , the amount of litigation is not a shrinking statistic.
Sadly, it is now recognised that Australia is now the most litigious (sp?) society in the world – we have overtaken the good ole US of A in the number of lawsuits filed per head.
I also read recently in the media that Australia is one of the most regulated countries in the world. Commentators put this down to
a) our convict past (apparently we are very likely to do something unless we are specifically told not to), and
b) our enterprising spirit (even if we are specifically told not to, we will still try and bend the rules if if we reckon we can get away with it).
This means that in a bid to cover their arse, regulators then try to make sure the rules cover every potential possibility, no matter how unlikely or outlandish that possibility might be.
Sound familiar?
Most pilot’s can’t spell ironie. Ironye. Ironboard, (fkucit), let alone understand what it means. Can you please rephrase that?
Red is on the left if you are sitting in the aeroplane, that means port because it’s the same colour, green is what you look like if you fly in black clouds. Sorry just thinking out aloud…. Oh fkuck that to hard. Which brings me to another point…. but that’s off topic. I don’t remember eating that!
Arm out the window; You’re Kevin Rudd, aren’t you!
As for the subject of this thread; A Lawyer aquaintance of mine once spent a few hours going through my copy of the ANOs as they were at the time and afterwards stated that in some instances only a Lawyer would be able to understand them.
He also claimed that he could fine several direct contradictions, ie one reg says no you can’t and another reg said yes you can!
And how much did you say has been spent on the rewrite so far, Taily?
Never mention him and me in the same sentence! Actually, Ruddy would probably say a few words in Mandarin as well, to add to the overall effect…
And the eternal refrain from the bureaucrats and lawyers:
“It means what it says”.
Moderator
Two months short of 23 years and they admit to burning over $200 million on the exercise. Don’t worry, it is only our insignificant tax money.
As I read it, it’s saying “there is (or may be) another Part or Subpart dealing with the kind of authorisation in question, so be aware the requirements in this subpart are not the only ones.”
Exactly, no ambiguityBlackhand said: So, why doesn’t it say that?”Plain English” is the instruction given to Parliamentary Counsel and it ought apply to whomever is drafting this stuff.
I’m a lawyer and I had to scratch my head to work out what the hell the author was saying. It shouldn’t take a precedent in the High Court to interpret something that should be relatively straight forward.
The definition given to particular words, such as “terrain” should be dealt with in a definitions section if the ordinary common meaning isn’t deemed sufficient although, God help us, it ought be clear enough.
kaz
kaz
Last edited by kaz3g; 20th Jul 2012 at 11:52.
A thousand apologies Sir.
So I wonder how the sales of BMWs and Porsches have been in Canberra?
CASA have allowed the legal fraternity to get theor claws into something that should be reasonably simple to understand and work with, and turn it into something that requires a lawyer to navigate to. How fortuitous for them!
However as Blackhand hinted at, isn’t this just another symptom of the increasingly litigious society we live in? The vast majority of us are law abiding and sensible aviators, but it appears the regs are engineered to cater for the minority of idiots that fcuk it up for the rest of us.
Now that’s funny!
CASA have allowed the legal fraternity to get theor claws into something …
The lack of understanding evident in that statement is breathtaking but, unfortunately, ubiquitous.
CASA is created by one sentence in a law passed by the parliament.
CASA’s powers and functions are specified in laws passed by the parliament.
Delegated legislation must be made in accordance with laws passed by the parliament and the policies of the government of the day, then tabled for disallowance by the parliament. Regulations are made by the Governor-General, on recommendation from the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure. Only CAOs and small number of other legislative instruments are made by CASA. But they all have to be made, published and tabled in accordance with the same laws and policies.
The reason every aspect of daily life in Australia is being slowly regulated to death is that Australians keep electing dumb and dumber governments who are very happy to keep pumping out laws as fast as they can be made. Governments consider the making of a law to be an ‘achievement’ and ‘progress’. (Look at what the current government claims to be among its successes: the passage of thousands of pages of primary legislation that ultimately do only one of two things: tax the populace or create new criminal offences.)
The reason governments get away with it is because punters like CSD blame the regulators.
Last edited by Creampuff; 21st Jul 2012 at 09:50.
CIVIL AVIATION REGULATIONS 1988 – REG 157
Low flying(1) The pilot in command of an aircraft must not fly the aircraft over:
(a) any city, town or populous area at a height lower than 1,000 feet; or
(b) any other area at a height lower than 500 feet.
Penalty: 50 penalty units.
(2) An offence against subregulation (1) is an offence of strict liability.
Note For strict liability , see section 6.1 of the Criminal Code .
(3) A height specified in subregulation (1) is the height above the highest point of the terrain, and any object on it, within a radius of:
(a) in the case of an aircraft other than a helicopter — 600 metres; or
(b) in the case of a helicopter — 300 metres;
from a point on the terrain vertically below the aircraft.
(3A) Paragraph (1) (a) does not apply in respect of a helicopter flying at a designated altitude within an access lane details of which have been published in the AIP or NOTAMS for use by helicopters arriving at or departing from a specified place.
(4) Subregulation (1) does not apply if:
(a) through stress of weather or any other unavoidable cause it is essential that a lower height be maintained; or
(b) the aircraft is engaged in private operations or aerial work operations, being operations that require low flying, and the owner or operator of the aircraft has received from CASA either a general permit for all flights or a specific permit for the particular flight to be made at a lower height while engaged in such operations; or
(c) the pilot of the aircraft is engaged in flying training and flies over a part of a flying training area in respect of which low flying is authorised by CASA under subregulation 141 (1); or
(d) the pilot of the aircraft is engaged in a baulked approach procedure, or the practice of such procedure under the supervision of a flight instructor or a check pilot; or
(e) the aircraft is flying in the course of actually taking-off or landing at an aerodrome; or
(f) the pilot of the aircraft is engaged in:
(i) a search; or
(ii) a rescue; or
(iii) dropping supplies;
in a search and rescue operation; or
(g) the aircraft is a helicopter:
(i) operated by, or for the purposes of, the Australian Federal Police or the police force of a State or Territory; and
(ii) engaged in law enforcement operations; or
(h) the pilot of the aircraft is engaged in an operation which requires the dropping of packages or other articles or substances in accordance with directions issued by CASA.AND the comparative FAR:
§ 91.119 Minimum safe altitudes: General.
Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:
(a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.
(b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft.
(c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.
(d) Helicopters. Helicopters may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section if the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface. In addition, each person operating a helicopter shall comply with any routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the Administrator.
Just a bit easier to understand
Yep, a lot easier to understand and not a mention of Penalty units, Criminal codes, police, public floggings or lethal injection either!
bbbbbbbbzzzzzzzzzzzzbbbbbbbbbbbzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Ooo-err!
Looks like I’ve done gone and ruffled the wig of the resident lawyer. Well, it’s not the first time I’ve fallen afoul of the legal fraternity!
C.P.,
Firstly, thanks for the explanation of the legislative process. 27 years ago the rule book was less than half the size it is now. My bleat about having to access the regs on the AG’s website was but pining for a simpler time. Back then a pilot was judged by their ability to operate an aircraft safely and efficiently both on the ground and in the air (anybody else remember that definition?!). These days it appears that the standard is now being able to quote chapter and verse from the ever-increasing and unnecessarily complex rules that seem to be designed to catch you out.
Agree – mostly. However you have to concede that the increasingly litigious nature of our society is a key factor here. CASA are just tin-plating their asses here. And guess what – they’re not Robinson Crusoe in that regard.
Not just the regulators. And don’t call me a punt.
No, it wasn’t just about that. You blamed CASA for that outcome:
CASA hasn’t ‘allowed’ anything. CASA has continued to do what it’s told to do or – perhaps more importantly – what it’s allowed to get away with, by its political lords and masters.
You need to understand the metaphor about monkeys and organ grinders to understand my point.
Where is your data to demonstrate our society is ‘increasingly litigious’?
OK then.
So you agree with me then?
Oh you cannot be serious (spoken in my best John McEnroe voice)! You want “data”? Try the media for a start. Seems like every day there’s a story about someone sueing someone else. It’s becoming a national sport. I’ve even been threatened with legal action myself for proffering a professional opinion. They didn’t have the guts to follow it through though.
Last edited by Captain Sand Dune; 22nd Jul 2012 at 09:33.
Millions of Lawyers can’t have chosen the wrong profession, surely?
I guess there must be a need for them.
You can’t tell the difference between CASA being allowed to do something, and CASA allowing something to be done, CSD? I suppose I should no longer be surprised at the number of pilots who are evidently functionally illiterate.
So ‘the media’ is your data, CSD? That would be the same media that are roundly criticized on PPRuNe, on the grounds of inaccuracy, whenever reports about matters relating to aviation are published?
‘Millions of lawyers’, eh FA? Another one based on ‘the media’?
CP
‘Millions of lawyers’, eh FA? Another one based on ‘the media’?
Maybe a little grand but based on the admissions adverts there surely isn’t a shortage , and they all need to earn a buck , the amount of litigation is not a shrinking statistic.
Sadly, it is now recognised that Australia is now the most litigious (sp?) society in the world – we have overtaken the good ole US of A in the number of lawsuits filed per head.
I also read recently in the media that Australia is one of the most regulated countries in the world. Commentators put this down to
a) our convict past (apparently we are very likely to do something unless we are specifically told not to), and
b) our enterprising spirit (even if we are specifically told not to, we will still try and bend the rules if if we reckon we can get away with it).
This means that in a bid to cover their arse, regulators then try to make sure the rules cover every potential possibility, no matter how unlikely or outlandish that possibility might be.
Sound familiar?
Mentioning CASA and “the reg’s” in the same sentence is like asking how goes the Regulatory Review Process.
It’s probably not irony, but oxymoronic, or a waste of time.
I blame The Magna Carta for all those Lawyers.
Yes, yes. I know, a Mitsubshi Ute.
Good one! Having a juvenile sense of humour I thought I’d heard most of those, but that’s a newie to me.
Back to the debate / mud-slinging match, though; surely no-one can honestly claim our regs are produced with clarity of expression and ease of use as the uppermost priorities, can they?
If we accept that they aren’t (as I do), my next question is: why not?
Yes, they must be legally tight and consistent, but surely CASA has a duty to produce stuff that bloody well works for the industry!
There it is – Thanks T28D
Lets just be a “tosser” and toss out the old and replace them with the FAR’s, with the necessary minor changes.
We would then align with the ICAO requirements [Get casa out of jail with the ICAO non-compliance’s – all 2600 of them]
and
BINGO:
The GA and the rest of the avaiation community could get on with operating without fear or favour.
Do the Job??
Blackie I think he meant to say 2600 ‘differences’, although non-compliance has a familiar ring to it!
If you read the ‘Final Report’, see here:http://legacy.icao.int/fsix/AuditRep…_Report_en.pdf
…it is very much written like a NCN/RCA, with applicable responses from the applicable government agency.
It would appear that unlike the Oz Maritime Laws, that are very much standardised worldwide, we have along way to go (if ever) before we adopt a similar suite of regs to either the EU or US!
Creamy since your so keen to defend the indefensible and as your an avid reader, I’ll let you do the comparison:
http://legacy.icao.int/fsix/AuditRep…nal_Report.pdf
…and the US score/pass mark:
“This audit by ICAO validates our systems approach to safety,” said Robert A. Sturgell, acting administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). “The results show that our priorities are in the right place.”
The U.S. score, which was well above the global average of 56, reflected U.S. compliance with over 9,500 international safety standards. The FAA led U.S. preparations for the audit, which also included the National Transportation Safety Board, the U.S. Coast Guard and the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.
The team of ICAO auditors conducted a comprehensive audit of all aspects of civil aviation in the United States, including aircraft operations and airworthiness, accident investigation, navigation services, airports, personnel licensing and legislation and regulations. The auditors interviewed technical experts and conducted site visits to government and industry facilities to assess overall safety oversight.
The Universal Safety Oversight Audit Program was established by ICAO in 1995 at the urging of the United States. It provides civil aviation authorities throughout the world with valuable information on the overall health and effectiveness of their airspace systems.
Trivia question: What was Australia’s pass mark?
Creamy , You are being way to precious, FAA is a National body with a defined set of Regulations, ICAO is an oversight body that audits compliance Internationally.
The 2 are only coincident at the point of audit and compliance with the published international standard.
The latest from The CASA Briefing;
In the past month CASA has asked the aviation industry to comment on three important proposed parts of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations. A notice of proposed rule making has been published for Part 119, which covers air operator’s certificates for passenger and cargo air transport. Drafts of Part 135 – air transport operations in small aeroplanes – and Part 133 – rotorcraft air transport operations – have also been released. In all three cases these proposed sets of rules are the culmination of years of work by both people in CASA and the aviation industry. In the case of Part 119 a total of 31 people are listed as having directly participated in the development of proposed regulations. This includes people from the major airlines, aviation academics and medium sized air operators. In addition, there has been previous broad consultation with the industry which allowed a wide range of other people to comment on the proposals. The draft regulations and proposed standards we are seeing now are the outcome of careful thought by many people about the future of aviation safety in Australia. They are most certainly not proposals created behind closed doors by CASA to be imposed on the aviation industry.
In fact, each new part of the suite of Civil Aviation Safety Regulations is a piece of a mosaic designed to create an even safer aviation safety system for Australia. As far as is possible the new rules are based on International Civil Aviation Organization standards and recommended practices and align with other leading aviation nations. The safety standards aim to address known risks and to improve the safety performance of organisations and individuals in aviation. In many areas of the proposed new rules there is a focus on building defences against organisational and individual failures that can jeopardise safety. Requirements for the establishment of safety management systems and the introduction of human factors training are examples of defences that we know will deliver better safety outcomes and these are being proposed where appropriate.
I understand that some people will look at the volume of proposed rules being released and feel a little overwhelmed and perhaps wonder why it is all happening now. The answer is that many of these regulatory parts are dependent on each other and only make sense when you can see the whole picture. If you are not directly affected by a set of proposed new regulations, you really only need to gain an understanding of the bigger picture, which you can quickly obtain from the summary information posted on the CASA web site. Naturally, if a set of rules impacts directly on your operations I would urge you to take the time to read the consultation material in more detail. There is more on the proposed Parts 119, 133 and 135 later in this edition of the CASA Briefing.
In summary, CASA will have the remaining new parts of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations made as law shortly, bringing an effective end to the regulatory reform program. CASA is very cognizant; however, that the major issue to be faced is the ability of the aviation industry to absorb change. In fact, at the recent Standards Consultative Committee meeting in Canberra, there were calls from some sectors of the industry for the regulatory reform program to be slowed down.
CASA has gained significant momentum over the last few years with the establishment of the Regulatory Task Force, which was formed in concert with the Attorney General’s Department. We would be foolish to disrupt this demonstrably successful initiative. However, CASA can and will moderate the commencement date of the new regulation suites and develop savings provisions as necessary as we assess the amount of transition that is required by the industry with the overriding caveat as explained above that many of the remaining regulatory parts are not viable as ‘stand-alone’ items: they must go as one package.
Once again, I urge you all to respond to our calls for comments so that Australia can move forward with a regulatory set that positions us at the forefront of the aviation industry world wide.
Best regards
John F McCormick
I particularly liked:
Last edited by Frank Arouet; 24th Jul 2012 at 12:43.
This We would be foolish to disrupt this demonstrably successful initiative.Translates as: We have the politicians well and truly bluffed.
Watch out Blackie “K” has docked the ferry and is off looking for lost souls!
Oh and Creamy here’s a genuine letter of concern for you to send to your local MP, all you need do is cut and paste, put the applicable MP’s name and address with your cursive down the bottom..then fwd on. Come on I know you want to…..certainly make’s more sense than the ‘skull spin’ in the regulator’s ripping yarns page!
To: the Member for Kickinatinalong.
Dear Member.
I am one of more than 100,000 people associated with aviation in Australia who will be voting in the impending Federal election. Like many of my colleagues I am deeply concerned about the present state of the industry, not only in terms of air safety but of the ability of the industry to remain viable under the present conditions. Could you please outline your party policy on the following important issues.
1) New Zealand, Canada and Papua New Guinea have each provided, using industry consultation, within a 5 year period an outcome based regulatory suite which has been welcomed by the national industry. Meanwhile, Australia remains internationally embarrassed by a suite of complex, prescriptive, criminal law based regulation which is legally and financially detrimental, unacceptable to and unusable by the industry, non compliant with International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) requirements, remains incomplete after 23 years and has so far cost in excess of two hundred million dollars.
2) The recent crash of an Air France Airbus claimed 256 lives; the report on the incident highlights many of the industry concerns related to pilot competency based training standards. These concerns were recently examined by the Senate and a ‘white paper’ was provided by the incumbent Minister. The industry believes the white paper to be a flawed, misleading, self serving document which solely allows the present Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) to continue drafting incompetent regulation without the benefit of expert industry consultation or addressing the issues.
3) There is a strong support within the industry for dismantling the present Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) and it’s replacement with a Civil Aviation Administration as in other ICAO compliant countries. One major concern, amongst many, is the devastating effect the CASA is having on the industry in terms of operator, pilot and industry confidence. This is affecting the industry ability to attract investment, foster training and create employment. There exists a real, tangible need to examine all facets of the manner in which the CASA conducts business with the user pays industry it serves.
4) Air Traffic Services (ATS) to the Australian public are essential to safety. The current system has been progressively and systematically degraded to the point where, many believe the probability of a mid air collision has increased to crisis point. The service is understaffed, over managed; and, beginning to show signs of being irretrievably damaged by a shortage of skilled, qualified personnel. There exists in real time, a pressing need to provide the ATS with suitable equipment, the personnel to operate that equipment and a training system which returns Australia to a world class system for separating aircraft in the busy airspace surrounding our capital cities.
5) The International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) have through consultation developed an audit model which has been almost universally adapted by all responsible National Aviation Authorities. The industry believe that this model should be accepted and fully utilised in Australia. It is further acknowledged that Australia has one of the most lengthy ‘differences’ list with the ICAO system, approximately 2500 items, it is considered essential that this number be reduced and the industry returned to world best practice.
The points above serve to highlight just a few of the many aviation industry concerns. Would your government be prepared, through policy to announce an overhaul of the present system and return Australian aviation to its position as a world leader in safety and excellence?
Yours sincerely.
N. Aviator.
Last edited by Sarcs; 24th Jul 2012 at 16:42.
“CASA is very cognizant; however, that the major issue to be faced is the ability of the aviation industry to absorb change. In fact, at the recent Standards Consultative Committee meeting in Canberra, there were calls from some sectors of the industry for the regulatory reform program to be slowed down.”
Pity their not cognizant of the “COST” and the industries ability to absorb it.
These idiots need to understand that there are limits to what people are prepared to pay for a service…when the costs get ridiculous people look for alternatives…I mean DUUH! isnt that the premise the “Ginger Ninja” is using to justify her Carbon TAX.
So Mr CASA if your few thousand pages of “B..llSh..t” drives the cost of aviation to that point where people wont pay for it what then?
You have nothing left to regulate.
What was his name?
The latest blurb, issued by ‘he who must not be named’ worries me more than any of the previous scripts provided from Yes Minister; it shows a new strategy.
Just have a read of some of the current rubbish on offer, talk to the engineers (those that have stayed in business) then decide. It will do no good to whinge and whine after this mess becomes law; and, by the sounds of it, there is a whole load of ‘new’ law heading your way. There is a little time before the next election.
So far the ‘new’ regulations have provided a garbled mix of CAO and CAR loaded in favour of the regulator, larded with Draconian threats and seasoned with complex language. The next step will be to dump a load of unworkable rubbish into the industry lap and say – ‘there you go boys, new regs’. Then it becomes the industry problem, not theirs. Yes Minister, we delivered, not our fault the industry can’t work them. We consulted, we redrafted and we provided.
Have the regulations been reformed and remodelled in compliance with ICAO and the rest of the world? or have we just been handed a stew of the same of old crap, reformatted to suit.
Last edited by Kharon; 26th Jul 2012 at 06:29.
Reformatted for sure gets my vote!
After all what do you expect from a bunch of geriatrics, who are totally disenfranchised from the mainstream industry stakeholders!
Skull’s spiel from the July edition of ‘Ripping Yarns’ is almost word for word from the bureaucratise book of spin, he even has the audacity to blame certain operators for current delays. Oh but haven’t I heard that before somewhere??…
The aviation industry is being given more time to consider key proposals for reform of the aviation safety regulations.
The Civil Aviation Safety Authority is extending the cut-off date for comments on six detailed safety reform documents.
This follows calls from many sections of the aviation industry to allow extra time for careful consideration of the reform proposals.
CASA’s Director of Aviation Safety, Mick Toller, says industry comment is vital in getting the new safety regulations right.
“The new regulations will set the framework for aviation safety in Australia for the first part of this Century, so it is critical they are the best we can achieve,” Mr Toller says.
“CASA can’t do this alone – we need to draw on the expertise and knowledge of as many people in the aviation industry as possible.
“In recent weeks a number of people have told me they are very keen to comment on these proposals but they simply need more time.
“These Discussion Papers and Notices of Proposed Rule Making are large documents and some of the issues are complex, so it is only sensible to allow as much time as possible for comment.
“I urge people in aviation in Australia to give their input to the proposed reforms so we can refine and improve on the drafts.”
CASA is extending the comment deadline until August 31 for six reform documents.
These cover pilot licensing, flying training, air operator certification, large air transport operations and small air transport operations.
The consultation documents have been issued by CASA as part of the program of rewriting Australia’s aviation safety regulations.
Oh and the proforma spiels let’s see….here’s one from 1999:
CASA’s ambitious reform program The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) is setting itself an ambitiousprogram of reform for the future, according to the new Chairman Dr PaulScully-Power. Dr Scully-Power says CASA is committed to continuing the rewriting of Australianaviation regulations and to fair and consistent enforcement of the rules.
He says aviation regulations will be simpler and easier to follow and willmove closer to international standards.
“The CASA Board has a clear vision of the changes and reforms whichare required to help improve the safety record of aviation in Australia andwill work to ensure they are embraced by everyone in CASA and theindustry,” Dr Scully-Power says.
“Our long term goal is to make flying as easy as possible for everyonein Australia who complies with the rules and acts responsibly.
“In the short term CASA has a number of important projects under waythat will deliver real benefits to the aviation industry and the travellingpublic.
“The most important of these projects is the continuing work torewrite the aviation safety regulations.
“This is a huge job which has been progressing for some time and willtake many more months to complete.
“Right now the new regulations governing Airworthiness Directives arebeing finalised and should come into effect by the end of October this year.
“Rules relating to Aircraft Registration and Markings will berewritten in the second half of this year.”
….and 2002!
New air safety rules to help industry A new analysis shows the restructuring of Australia’s aviation regulations will greatly simplify and clarify air safety requirements. More than 900 civil aviation regulations and orders will be organised into 53 key categories under the new structure of the air safety rules.
This user-friendly approach will make it easier for people in the aviation industry to find the right rules for their operation.
The categories – known as Parts under the new structure – cover areas such as airworthiness, maintenance, licensing, flight rules, air transport operations and aerodromes.
At the moment people working in a small airline or charter business must follow specific rules for their type of operation, which are contained in more than 95 different civil aviation regulations and orders.
Under the new structure all the rules dedicated to small airlines and charter operations will be in a single category – Part 121B.
Large airlines currently follow rules specific to their operations which are located in more than 65 different regulatory areas. These will now be grouped into one category – Part 121A.
General operating and flight rules are now spelt out in at least 95 regulations and orders. These will be located in a single category – Part 91.
CASA’s Acting Director of Aviation Safety, Bruce Gemmell, says the new analysis of the regulatory reform programme is a real eye-opener.
“The proposed new structure has been around for a while but no-one has sat down and looked carefully at it’s impact in this way,” Mr Gemmell says.
“The good news is that the impact is very, very positive. The life of everybody involved in aviation in Australia will be a great deal easier under this simpler, clearer regulatory structure.
“Under the new rules you can go to a clear subject area to look up the regulations and requirements specific to your aviation operations. Naturally, for most people there will still be generally applicable rules that will be contained in other Parts.
“But the bottom-line is that under the new structure it will be easier to find the air safety requirements relevant to your operation.
“Of course, there’s a lot more to the reform of the regulations than just restructuring, however the benefits of this initiative alone are now obvious.”
As Kelpie would say…”more to follow!”
If the industry was represented by a single voice (the same way the medical industry have the vocal and influential AMA) CASA would not exist most likely. I mean, who is the regulator for doctors and hospitals? When did you last see the medical regulator kicking ambulance tyres and counting bedpans at a hospital and then dangling your livelihood in front of you because they were displeased?
While we continue to allow the People’s Front of Judea (AIPA/AFAP) and the Judean People’s Front (TWU) and the Judean Popular People’s Front (ALAEA) and the myriad of other well meaning sectional interest groups to be the voice of industry there is no hope of containing the Romans (CASA).
Someone will tell me I’m wrong no doubt
It starts at “the grass roots” of general aviation before it gets to the Industrial Unions.
When you have, what used to be, a one man operation in the bush, training and doing the odd charter, turn into a multi faceted CASAcentric, paper intensive, AOC regulatory overburden operation with criminal consequences, you have what we have now. A “clusterfcuk”
I have always said, there is no democracy on the flight deck, so the concept of a large number of “alpha” males/ (females) getting together and coming to any concensus is pure fantasy.
Asking our benevolent regulator to bin those same qualifications that got them the job in the first place, is similarly fantasy. We need leaders, not psychopaths in all facets of the industry.
1) CASA should regulate as as a CAA.
2) ATSB should investigate.
3) Federal police should prosecute.
Government needs to address item 1) first, as the regulations are unworkable for the other parties.
2) ATSB should investigate.
3) Federal police should prosecute.
That would require a special federal copper aviation squad, wouldn’t it? But I think you’re right that CASA needs to be less Gestapo and more leading light.
Last edited by Arm out the window; 26th Jul 2012 at 16:20.
There already is an AFP aviation squad, I believe their acronym is JAIT or JAT for Joint Aviation (Investigation) Teams….and Frank I think it should be:
2) ATSB should investigate accidents/incidents.
3) AFP investigate breaches of the Civil Aviation Act.
4) CDPP should decide whether to prosecute.
The irony of 4) is that in JQ’s case the CDPP decided not to prosecute…but the regulator decided to go on with it regardless!!
Before I have any faith in the CDDP, I would firstly like to see what happens with “the Slipper affair”. Too many “incidents” have been buried here by higher authority.
Also one should be aware that most of the old OLC network now work for, or act for CDDP. (only a rumour, as strong as it came, but this is a rumour network isn’t it)?
Frank, Ah the CDPP the legal hall of fame, possibly the most inept bunch in the country.
In W.A. a Prosecutor completely stuffs Andrew Mallards life who gets a life jail term but the prosecutor is subsequently found to have run the case incompetently, result = $10,000 fine after he resigned and got a $270,000.00 payout. Mallard gets released by the Supreme court after 12 years, exonerated with a State $3.0million ex gratia payout.
I know not aviation related and state based but demonstrates the breathtaking way the various DPP protect their own.
Just a demonstration of the way the Criminal Justice system operates.
Don’t you mean Airstapo??
At least the new proposals to make all the raw data from ATSB incident reports available to CASA — “for enforcement purposes” will greatly reduce the workload for both organizations, as the flow of reports to ATSB ceases!!
Tootle pip!!!
Godwin’s Law proved again!
Very amusing, but how true!
Here are a small part of some of the ‘new’ regulations at work in a hanger near you.
Maintenance mayhem for general aviation – aviationadvertiser.com.au
There are no prizes on offer for guessing what comes next .
This Financially irresponsible, legally incompetent and morally bankrupt system cannot, any longer be allowed to dictate or manage the industry it is paid to serve.
Last edited by Kharon; 2nd Aug 2012 at 06:03.
Finally, they got one that works. That just leaves us how many to go. Oh, I give up but it’s lots and lots.
You don’t seem to understand very much at all Blackhand.
The regulations are not written “in plain English”.
The regulations do not “mean what they say”.
This AAT decision demonstrates how one or more CASA staff perverted the meaning of the word “generally” in one of many perverse and badly written regulations to cause misery and expense to a number of operators. Anyone like to work out how much this has cost the industry?
Caper Pty Ltd T/a Direct Air Charter and Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2011] AATA 181 (21 March 2011)
Although I have found that Caper operated between Darwin and Bathurst Island in accordance with fixed schedules, to and from fixed terminals, that operation does not fall under the definition of RPT. That is because the accommodation on Caper’s aircraft in that operation is not available for use by persons generally. In my opinion, reading the adverbial clause in CAR 206(1)(b)(ii) in accordance with its grammatical construction makes it clear that the word generally qualifies the adjective available and not the noun persons. In other words, an operation is a charter operation where accommodation in the aircraft is not generally available for use by persons. The adverb, generally, cannot qualify or modify the noun persons. Unfortunately, it appears that this is the way in which the expression has been understood by CASA. It has resulted in attempts to distinguish charter from RPT on a basis which makes no sense and is not related to the safety of air navigation. In my opinion, the correct way in which CAR 206 should be understood will alleviate those problems.
I have also briefly examined the validity of CAR 206(1)(b) in general. I have found that because that regulation is merely concerned with definitions, it has been lawfully made under s 98 of the Act. Unlike the earlier Air Navigation Regulations dealing with the licensing of air operations, following the commencement of the 1988 Act, s 28 is where CASA derives its power to control the commercial operations of AOC holders. Those matters are no longer dealt with under the regulations.
I find that the decision made by CASA on 7 September 2010 to cancel one of the authorisations contained in Caper’s AOC in respect of its operations between Darwin and Bathurst Island for the purpose of conducting the Tiwi Islands tours was incorrect. I set aside that decision and instead determine that the conditions on Caper’s AOC should remain unaltered. Caper should be permitted to continue with its charter operations between Darwin and Bathurst Island.
……..And of course the good member Fice, cannot rule on whether this was malicious or just stupidity.
Last edited by Sunfish; 5th Aug 2012 at 09:49.
Can you name one, just one, sham charter/RPT operator?
Do you have a reference DEF
The reference for all to see is:
Civil Aviation Safety Authority v Caper Pty Ltd [2012] FCA 1213 (2 November 2012)
So by my reading of that, every scenic operation in Australia has just been shut down.
…Creampuff? Would you agree?
I would like to see an interpretation of carriage in a aircraft from a fixed terminal to a fixed terminal in which the seats are sold on a individual basis and that the flights are available from 08:00 until 17:00 daily.
HL, sorry about that, I should refresh before adding a post. It took a while to read the decision.
Last edited by 601; 12th Nov 2012 at 11:54.
In an open charter, carriage of the general public is contemplated but only if it is not to be performed on a fixed schedule to and from fixed terminals.
In a closed charter, carriage may be undertaken on a fixed schedule to and from fixed terminals but the general public may not be carried. Whatever risks the passengers are exposed to in a closed charter, those risks are confined to a closed group.
So it would appear that, like all things, it is all a matter of timing. For a Bungles or Lake Eyre flight it is a matter of simply waiting for the punters to rock up, and go when they are ready. No more the massed first-light departures of 206s and 207s from KNX it seems.
What about longer trips, like the Belray tours through Argyle Diamond Mine? The inclusion of “lunch” in the price would appear to infer the operator is setting a schedule, would it not?
A quick read of the decision shows us the problem. The learned judges have taken note of the purpose of the act – to prevent accidents. One way to do this, consistent with the act, is to prevent aviation entirely. There is no modifying clause such as “consistent with reasonable commercial endeavors” or suchlike.
So the judges at about sect 51 have simply said that the law requires interpretation with regard to the purpose of the act, and if CASA interprets capers operation as RPT then that trumps the grammatical interpretation used by the tribunal.
To put it another way, words mean what CASA say they mean, not what you think they mean.
I find it strange that in the Caper decision no mention was made of the second reading of the Bill by Dept P.M Anderson in 1998 – it refers to CASA having a Safety role and not a Commercial one. All reference to Commercial to be removed? Wouldn’t such a direction ( Acts Interpretation Act 1901) be an Original Intent overriding most that went before.
In their submission to the Court CASA have established that Charter is much more dangerous than RPT with a similar aircraft. Having established this in Court, why have they let Charter flying continue knowing it is so unsafe. Once this was discovered over 14 years ago, why didn’t they immediately ground all Charter operators. I know of several cases where a Charter flight ended with fatal outcome. Does this make CASA complicit ? Any thoughts?
I conducted RPC note not RPT for nearly a year, halfway through my AOC was even renewed. When the interposed entity was changed to another, the whole of the operation became unsafe??? overnight, same pilots, same aircraft why didn’t Caper use this approval ? Same situation even condoned by OLC and the CDPP.
The inter office emails soon to be released!
Stan
Blackhand, I am an occasional SCUBA diver. I always dive with a world renowned live aboard dive operator out of Cairns.
That dive tour operator advertises that a highlight part of the Seven to Ten day trip to the barrier reef and beyond is a flight either to or from Lizard Island and Cairns over the reef itself to meet or leave the boat.
These flights used to be conducted in a “convoy” in Two or Three Twins as they were the largest to land on Lizard.
Now these are RPT? The “airline” component of the price of the trip is derisory, your bar bill is bigger.
Furthermore, I question the issue of “schedule” in the case of Mike Ball Diving, and Kings the schedule is theirs, not the “airline”. I wonder if the Judges might like to consider this matter?
Last edited by Sunfish; 12th Nov 2012 at 18:58.
I reckon both the AAT and the Federal Court have erroneous reasoning in their decisions, but I reckon the AAT’s is less wrong than the Federal Court’s.
But my opinion on the question is irrelevant: the Federal Court’s decision is binding unless successfully appealed or distinguished/overturned.
This is merely another example of many that have arisen – unnecessarily – from a chronically incompetent and therefore unproductive regulatory reform process.
FFS: Fix 206!
Last edited by Creampuff; 12th Nov 2012 at 18:54.
Rang my FOI to seek clarification on this one.
He seemed to infer that a “scenic” flight could occur from A back to A, but if you need to make a landing at an intermediate point before returning the same passengers to A “thats a bit too far to be a scenic flight”.
Is there a new arm to the definition of RPT?
– persons generally
– to & from fixed terminals
– too far to do without refuelling.
Is it the company’s place to suggest a departure time, or does that make it a fixed schedule?
Is it the company’s place to suggest a route for a scenic flight, or does that make it “to and from fixed terminals”?
My FOI suggested that it will all be clearer in a couple of years. I am hugely relieved.
I could send (another) letter to my local member but I am pretty sure that a serial pest will be the one that gets the regulator’s full attention!
Did your FOI happen to define what that flight would then be classified as?
Several times a year Croydon Travel conduct scenic flights to Antarctica, as an interposed entity who don’t appear to have an AOC but use Qantas aircraft this appears to meet the ($$$$$) requirements of the Regs. To the best of my knowledge Qantas don’t have this route on their AOC. I’m not suggesting there is a safety issue, but why do they need Croydon Travel?
Another better example is Captains Choice. Flies to a schedule – fixed terminals – open to the public if you can afford it. But then it’s not G.A. Stupid of me.
It took some reading, but again the effects of poorly worded legislation in reg 206 is again on us all.
From the FCA finding:
It is common ground between the parties that:
(a) in order to operate a commercial air charter service an AOC is required by operation of subreg 206(1)(b).
(b) Caper holds an AOC, issued on 10 Feb 2010, authorising it to conduct passenger carrying charter operations, in Australian territory, in specified Australian registered aircraft; and
(c) Caper is not and has never been authorised under its AOC to operate RPT services as defined by subreg 206(1)(c).
The effect here really becomes one where casa is regulating a commercial operation, not dealing with the underlying operation to ensure that the operation is operated safely.
and further:
Again, is casa now to be the purveyor of the “commercial purposes”?
The effect of a completely separate entity [AAT] ringing the charter operator [Caper] and saying “We need an aircraft for a 9AM flight this week, but don’t know how many persons for the tour we are running, we will advise prior” has not at all been considered, nor the potential response of “Will you let us know the numbers and weight so we can decide whether a Chieftain or the 206 is available” has not at all been considered.
That the FOI in the matter has rung AAT or Caper, to get a seat, but was told that he could only get a seat by being part of a tour indicates that the flight is available only for a specific purpose.
To provide a flight for AAT customers to “Do the Tiwi tour” – surely a charter operation and in effect similar to that of a “regular” charter [RPT] by the Fly-In-Fly-Out [FIFO\ operators as described by the FCA judge.
One of the quoted cases is worth a read as to the matter of “Head of Power”, and it’s relevance in this matter.
The quotation available at:
Project Blue Sky v ABA [1998] HCA 28; 194 CLR 355; 153 ALR 490; 72 ALJR 841 (28 April 1998)
We can take this further, remembering that the Caper matter has gone to the Tribunal, where they were successful. casa applies “double jeopardy” and goes to the Federal Court [The AAT, stands in the shoes of the Regulator] and the learned Judge, quotes the following:
The key words are “…the duty of a court….”
Last time I looked, the AAT was not a Court!!!
If casa wants it this way, as Harvey [the casa million dollar man] appears to, then all the evidence must be to that standard, an issue in many cases, that has not been met.
Just look at some of the PPRuNe posts to this time.
Last edited by Up-into-the-air; 13th Nov 2012 at 10:32. Reason: Add more information
Here is another beauty:
Came up in a Senate Questions on Notice []Senate Committees – Parliament of Australia at question 155 and at “attachment” for full document.
Just engrish mr. casa!
Last edited by Up-into-the-air; 20th Feb 2013 at 10:58.
If I was to attempt to interpret it, I’d say it means ‘If you get information from anyone you mustn’t tell them you won’t use it.’
Sadly, it’s clearly a legal arse-covering statement rather than a simple informative message. I can see why legal documents get so complex, eg:
“Were you aware you shouldn’t make an agreement not to divulge this information?”
“Yes, but I didn’t make an agreement, I gave him a nod and a wink.”
“Ah yes, but as clearly stated in this Minute dated 27 July 2011, that would imply an agreement, would it not?”
“Take me away, guv, you got me.”,
but f*#& me, that’s no way to write operating rules. Of course you need the legal basis, but as anyone who has had to read a legal contract knows, the language can be damn near impenetrable sometimes.
As a sentence, it’s complete crap. A reasonable reader has to scan it several times to figure out which are the subjects, and which the objects. Plainer language, shorter clauses and a few *** points would make the message much clearer. It amazes me that legal folk can still peddle a mess like this and get paid for it.
And yes, the intention is pretty dubious, too!
Last edited by tecman; 10th Feb 2013 at 12:29.
In its SAFETY function it simply means that:
“CASA or anyone associated with CASA shall not communicate with anyone in a legitimate regulatory sense. any communication shall be in the normal illegitimate manner”. (25 words)
There shall therefore be no “show cause notices” or “Christmas cards” or Licenses or AOC applied for or issued.
It is quite straight forward, no hiding behind excuses, business as usual.
I thought German and Dutch had long sentences! but this must be a world record for Engrish.
Should my entry be the winning one, what assurance have I got that I wont have to take the sponsor to Court?
wouldn’t this be a great statement for Fice to decipher as he did in the “Direct Air” case, his decision only to be overturned in the Fed Court appeal on the basis of the “original intent” –
The original, “original intent” was the protection of a Duopoly under the Two Airline (Act) the hearing never got that far. Too much information for his Honour, CASA never raised it as it would only prolong the hearing and cost the “victim” more money! very considerate!
My earlier response clearly allows for such intent. Same has been established case after case – CASA’s original intent has always been to get rid of their “victim”
“empty skies are safe skies”
Stwange is the JUL of 11 minute, that it is from The Office of Diwecter Aviation Safety to all Exec Managers, which I assume is The Execututive Diwecter, and cc to himself and the deputy Diwecter.
Why is he writing letters to himself?
Was this discussed over morning tea and why was it presented in minute form?
(no quorum perhaps)?
Just how many Diwercers do we need?
Weelly and twoolley, this is just too much!
Is that statement consistent with principles of a ‘just culture’?
Say somebody reports an issue as concerned of a wider safer risk in the industry.
CAA reporting system defines ‘Just Culture’ | CAA Newsroom | About the CAA
So that is why I cannot get a straight answer
“No one in CASA is ever to sign a confidentiality agreement or verbally agree to the same.”
Sound principle, I’ve seen some real shockers. Usually the more bloodthirsty the penalties in the confidentiality agreement, the shonkier the proposal. People like the venture capital arm of N. M. Rothschild won’t sign them either.
My interpretation, after 23 readings and only one fight with Mrs RA:
Oi, all yous CASA mob, don’t promise nobody nuffing. (9 words)
Here’s another one, just published on 20th February 2013:
Post Implementation of the Airspace Regulations (2007)IssueThe Airspace Regulations require amendment to remove ambiguity, enable applicability in the operational environment and to cater for the needs of Australia’s security authorities.
Without action, the validity of the delegation powers in use could be questioned, the validity of the application of the ARs to certain security scenarios could be questioned and complicated systems of legislative action will continue to be required to achieve simple safety outcomes operationally.
Project Objective
To make amendments to the Airspace Regulations in two (2) phases:
PHASE 1:
Clarify the delegation powers:
The Airspace Regulation delegation powers are unclear and require amendment to remove all doubt. Regulation 13 should make specific that the powers may be delegated to CASA airspace regulation officers and Military airspace regulation officers.
Cater for the needs of Australia’s Security Authorities:
The Airspace Act (Part 1, Section 3) identifies certain matters that are to be taken into account to ensure that Australian-administered airspace is administered and used safely. This includes “national security”. This term is insufficient to cover the various security needs that the OAR has been requested by the Government to enforce through the exercise of the Airspace Regulations. The changes made will remove any ambiguity.
PHASE 2:
1. Legislative Instruments Regulations Exemption
An exemption is sought under the Legislative Instruments Regulations 2004, Schedule 1, Part 2 (1A) for designations/directions made under Regulation 11/12. Air Traffic Control (ATC) providers may describe air routes verbally if operationally required. The air routes which are legislated do not cover flex routes or those made verbally by ATC providers, and are therefore incomplete. Pilots may request any particular way of reaching a destination as ATC has the ability to approve this.
Therefore, registering a small and incomplete set of air routes is of little value. Aviation maps show the common air routes in use and this is sufficient as a guide. The changes proposed are in accordance with ICAO Annexes, the Airspace Act and the Australian Airspace Policy Statement.
I hope this one is clear as well – I won’t read the docs as these will only confuse me further.
About time to get rid of this lot then???
Another one for the Engrish:
Thanks to Compressor stall [Given CASA a photo recently? No? Stump up $5500], try this:
(1) The holder of a flight crew licence commits an offence if:
(a) the holder exercises the privileges of the licence after the end of 10 years beginning:
(i) when the licence was granted; or
(ii) if the holder holds more than one flight crew licence—when the holder’s most recent licence was granted; and
(b) the holder has not, before the exercise of the privileges, given CASA a photograph of the holder:
(i) showing the holder’s full face and his or her head and shoulders; and
(ii) taken not earlier than 6 months before the end of the period mentioned in paragraph (a).
Penalty: 50 penalty units.
(2) An offence against this regulation is an offence of strict liability.
Last edited by Up-into-the-air; 7th Mar 2013 at 14:28.
Here is another one, this time what is on the casa web site and what FF’s CEO told the Senate inquiry in February.
See: CASA – Actions against Industry
Just have a look at who the author is!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The purpose of this Charter is to describe to the public and the aviation community, the service experience that can be expected in dealing with the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) and its staff.
We have a responsibility to inform people about their rights and responsibilities, including the right to expect high standards of service and behaviour from CASA officers.
We believe that people who are better informed and have a clearer understanding of legislative requirements are better able to comply with the rules and regulations in the maintenance of air safety. This in turn will enhance aviation safety levels in Australia.
The CASA Service Charter sets out our feedback process, so that you can let us know how well we are implementing our Service levels and how we can improve our service to you.
The Charter also sets out our Complaints Handling procedure so that you can let us know if you are dissatisfied with the standards of service you have received or are unhappy with a decision made by CASA staff. We believe that it is in everybody’s interests to resolve complaints efficiently and effectively.
Reports on our performance against this Service Charter will be included in our Annual Report.
This Charter forms part of CASA’s strategic planning and reporting system, which is based on the Corporate Plan. It has been developed in accordance with the Whole of Government approach detailed in the Department of Finance and Administration publication ‘Client Service Charter Principles’.
It has been prepared in consultation with staff, other relevant agencies and a broad cross section of the aviation community.
We will seek stakeholders’ views on the Charter’s effectiveness on a regular basis and use this information to improve our services.
and the crapspeak. Ggrrrr!!
This is how CASA persons and others while away their time, writing meaningless sh*te that nobody takes any notice of.
Millions of person hours and squillions of dollars for what. Its a bit like a dole office really paying people to do “pretend” work.
Benefit to the Common wealth is……????
Keeps them off the streets. Recycles tax funds. Any others??
Another one for you all:
Issue
In March 2009, Part 99 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 was introduced to cover drug and alcohol management plans (DAMP) and testing.
Since 2009, the initiative has been implemented by industry and oversighted by CASA. Since its original conception, there have been various implementation issues raised that require regulatory amendments to ensure transparency and continued high safety standards.
Issues to be addressed include but are not limited to:
DAMP responsibility and coverage issues e.g. contractors The Drug and Alcohol Education Program requirement – should CASA supply this program?
These are primarily regulatory amendment issues to be clarified that will help increase regulatory understanding from industry. The amendments will also improve unnecessary costs and resourcing issues that are faced by DAMP organisation which will in turn increase compliance while maintaining the same safety standards.
The last para is a “doosey”
and those involved:
Project Leader/s: Sharon Nylen, DAMP Oversight Section Head, Industry Permissions
Project Sponsor/s: Peter Fereday, Executive Manager Industry Permissions
Dr Pooshan Navathe – Aviation Medicine Principal Medical Officer
Gerard Campbell, A/g Executive Manager Operations
Adam Anastasi, General Counsel and Executive Manager Legal
Standards Officer/s: Ian Banks, Manager SMS & Human Factors, Standards Division
Project Sponsor/s: Peter Fereday, Executive Manager Industry Permissions
Dr Pooshan Navathe – Aviation Medicine Principal Medical Officer
Gerard Campbell, A/g Executive Manager Operations
Adam Anastasi, General Counsel and Executive Manager Legal
Standards Officer/s: Ian Banks, Manager SMS & Human Factors, Standards Division
Hmmmm. Some of the usual project persons in that lot!
It all sounds like a load of pony poohshan to me!
I am surprised one of the other bald Camberra’ites isn’t involved in this project as a sponsor? The one who normally likes to surround himself with people who get their hands dirty while he wins all that accolades.
Anyway, its all bollocks.
Last edited by my oleo is extended; 18th Mar 2013 at 20:42.
I thought I recognised them as well!!!
The “usual suspects” EH!!
Here is another, but look at the apparent [if you can understand the english] kick in the tail:
CASR Part 117 – Representations and surveys IssueCreation of a part in the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 (CASR) – Part 117 to deal with regulatory requirements that don’t precisely fit into the CASR Parts.This part will also serve as a future home for some new regulations with respect to proposed amendments to the Act that will provide a new head of power for matters currently unregulated.
Project Objective
The development of Part 117 will involve the relocation of CAR 210 from the CARs to the CASR’s, consolidation and updating of the survey requirements as a result of the Part 141 amendments.
Status
This project was approved by Peter Boyd, Executive Manager Standards Division on 18 March 2013.
Rules affected
CAR 210
Project management
Project Leader/s: Grant Mazowita
Project Sponsor/s: Peter Boyd Executive Manager Standards Division
Standards Officer/s: Grant Mazowita
Project Priority
High
Project SS 13/04
History
SCC
My bolding – Comments??
And I see Herr Boyd has a different lapdog on this project! He goes through project people like the Skull goes through stoogies.
Rumour is that those who do all of his work but produce bad results are cut loose, those who make him look good are kept along for the ride until no longer needed!
That’s today’s lesson from ‘CASA Management 101’.
The big mistake was having half based on FAR’s and half based on EASA regulations. EASA and FAA probably advised use one or the other we don’t care which one. It now looks like there is going to be middle reg’s to join the mismatches.
Is it true that maintenance reg’s were not going to accept APMA, which is a fundamental part of Part 21?
How long has “oversighted” been a real word!
They might have been looking for “overseen”, or perhaps their considered opinion was that “oversight” might be far more appropriate. (as in “that was an oversight on CASA’s part”)
You have to love officialese, don’t you? Without derailing this into a grammar rant, people ‘have oversight’ of things these days, they don’t supervise them.
They also ‘sign off on’ things, rather than just sign them.
Good, I feel better now!
Here’s the latest on the update at post # UITA Project: SS 13/04
http://casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/ma…sr-part117.pdf
(1) CASA may, by written notice given to a person mentioned in subregulation (2), direct the person to:
(a) complete a safety-related survey or questionnaire by accurately answering all questions in the survey or questionnaire; and
(b) submit the completed survey or questionnaire to CASA within the time stated in the notice.
(2) For subregulation (1), the persons are the following:
(a) the holder of an AOC;
(b) a Part 141 operator who conducts flight training in aircraft.
(3) The person may, before the end of the time stated in the notice, apply in writing to CASA for an extension.
(4) CASA may, by written notice given to the person (the notice of extension), grant the extension.
(5) The person commits an offence if the person does not comply with the direction within:
(a) if CASA grants an extension under subregulation (4)—the time stated in the notice of extension; or
(b) if paragraph (a) does not apply—the time stated in the notice under subregulation (1).
Penalty: 50 penalty units.
(6) An offence against this regulation is an offence of strict liability.
How can this be done??
You all know the pass rate in the ATPL is about 50% – A questionaire, by definition does not have specific answers!!
Last edited by Up-into-the-air; 2nd Apr 2013 at 12:46. Reason: more information
According to the Rule of Law Institute, coercive powers are the new tool , and most sort after power for crazy bureaucrats, bureaucrazies and others.
Is 117.015 in fact, legal. ??
Does CASA have proper laws to legally blackmail a person into answering a questionaire with the threat of 50 penalty points under strict liability?.
Probably not..but BS rules.OK
What happened to the right to remain silent.? One doesn’t have to say anything that may incriminate yourself or others
You could make some deliberate or accidental wrong answers and you are still not off the hook because CASA specifies..”accurate answers”
Who decides whether an answer is “accurate” or not?.
Some office plonker who doesnt comprehend the meaning of the question either.? Or just doesnt like the answer, or it’s not considered “correct” in their opinion? WTF!
IMHO this is yet another example for a)… getting yr rights trampled,
..and b) … telling CASA to FCUK OFF.
Unless the Industry fights back, this sort of thing will get steadily worse.
As if it isnt bad enough already !
The rule of Law ? …or the “Law” of Rules. Your call.
Everything is “Fine” in Australia……
There’s a fine for everything!!!!
They might have been looking for “overseen”, or perhaps their considered opinion was that “oversight” might be far more appropriate. (as in “that was an oversight on CASA’s part”)
You forgot ‘over the hill’, which aptly describes the silly old tosspots at the helm of the ‘S.S CASA’……..
“Aviation, what aviation?”
Here is the latest – Someone, please explain this to me.
Civil Aviation Order 48.1 Instrument 2013PART 1 GENERAL
1 Name of instrument
This instrument is the Civil Aviation Order 48.1 Instrument 2013.
2 Commencement
2.1 This instrument commences on 30 April 2013.
2.2 Despite paragraph 2.1, the provisions of this instrument take effect for an AOC holder and an FCM in accordance with subsection 4.
3 Repeals
3.1 On 30 April 2016, each of the following Civil Aviation Orders (CAOs) is repealed, namely CAO 48.0, CAO 48.1, CAO 48.2, CAO 48.3 and CAO 48.4.
3.2 To avoid doubt, on 30 April 2016, each of the following Civil Aviation Amendment Orders (CAAOs) is repealed, namely CAAO (No. R47) 2004, CAAO (No. R48) 2004, CAAO (No. R49) 2004, CAAO (No. R50) 2004 and CAAO (No. R51) 2004.
3.3 To avoid doubt, on 30 April 2016, each CAO mentioned in paragraph 3.1, and each CAAO mentioned in paragraph 3.2, as continued in force by subregulation 335 (2) of CAR 1988 as if it had been made on 4 December 2013 under regulation 210A of CAR 1988, is repealed.
If you would like to read it all:
Civil Aviation Order 48.1 Instrument 2013
Here’s the latest “casa speak” released today [“”there is a need……..””, “….as a matter of interpretation…”,”…..minor formatting errors….”] etc, etc Obviously, not good enough for an organisation that has sepnt $250m plus and counting, and still needs work:
Amendments of the Part 66 Manual of Standards (MOS) – Training Requirements and minor amendment to Part 147 MOS – Facility Requirements Issue The following issues require addressing in this project.
Well, here’s an admission that casa got it wrong, in the current DAS emission:
A range of issues relating to the aviation drug and alcohol program are to be clarified to help the aviation industry better understand the regulatory requirements. CASA has established a project to review Part 99 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations, which sets out the drug and alcohol management requirements. These regulations took effect in March 2009, introducing random testing and the need for aviation organisations to have drug and alcohol management plans.
During the implementation of the new rules CASA has identified a number of issues that require regulatory changes to improve the way the drug and alcohol program operates. These changes will assist in reducing the cost of compliance to the aviation industry, as well as addressing resourcing issues. In turn, this will increase compliance with the drug and alcohol regulations while maintaining the same safety standards. Issues to be examined include the definition of a safety sensitive employee, the coverage of contractors under drug and alcohol management plans, the requirement for pre-deployment testing and improving the return to work model. The question of should there be a requirement for industry to conduct random testing will also be reviewed.
Find out more about the drug and alcohol review.
Not bad for a $250m plus regulation re-write!!
I believe CASA’s costs alone amound to around six million dollars for every person caught..very effective use of tax payers money!!
Here we go again thornbird, just another little “fix”
Amendment to CASR Part 42 Manual of Standards (MOS) Issue A number of minor amendments to CASR Part 42 regulations, which deals with continuing airworthiness requirements for aircraft and aeronautical products, are in the final stage of making. These amendments have been found to be necessary since the introduction of CASR Part 42 regulations on 27 June 2011. CASA has already consulted with the aviation industry on these amendments.
Under the amendment a new regulation has been added to provide permission, under the Civil Aviation Act 1988 (the Act), for maintenance organisations to carry out maintenance on an Australian aircraft (to which Part 42 applies) outside Australian Territory. The permission is subject to the following conditions specified in the regulation:
An amendment to the Part 42 MOS is needed to include a list of countries that are parties to such agreements.
Another new regulation provides permission, under the Act, for maintenance organisations approved under the law of a foreign country to carry out maintenance on aeronautical products for Australian aircraft (to which Part 42 applies) outside Australian Territory, if the country is listed in Part 42 MOS. The current legislation provides acceptance of such maintenance by recognising authorised release certificates for maintenance carried out on the products under the law of a number of foreign countries; but exclusive permission to carry out the maintenance is necessary to comply with requirement of the Act. The recognised authorised release certificates and the related foreign countries are currently listed in Chapter 12 of Part 42 MOS. However, for regulatory completeness, Part 42 MOS will have to be amended to clarify that that these foreign countries are also permitted to carry out maintenance on aeronautical product for Australian aircraft (to which part 42 applies) outside Australian Territory.
Project objective
The objective of the project is to amend Part 42 MOS to include a list of foreign countries that are permitted to carry out maintenance on:
Rules affected
CASR PART 42
I larfed.
Very good
Oh good grief,
Now here’s an opportunity.
Since NZ has sensible FAA aligned maintenance regulations where maintenance costs around 2/3 less than in OZ illustrated by the boom
currently under way there,unlike here, where its sinking into oblivion.
Maybe there’s a chance to fix a few problems.
NZ is a tad too far away for everyone to get their maintenance done in a cost effective way.
Tassie however is do-able. Its economy is screwed since the greenies took over but!!
If Tassie was to secede from the commonwealth, adopt NZ regulations…
jeez they could forge a trans bass straight agreement!! everyone could head down there for maintenance…god the place would boom they could be lending money to the worlds greatest treasurer to prop up the australian economy
Here’s another, just released today. Remember these AC’s don’t have a “head-of-power”
AC-145(4) | Assistance to the Aviation Industry
6.1 Before a category A licence holder can carry out and certify for any of the category A licence tasks listed within Appendix II of the Part 145 Manual of Standards (MOS) they must be type and task trained and authorised by the Part 145 AMO. Type and task training may be carried out by the Part 145 AMO or a Part 147 Maintenance Training Organisation (MTO). In either case, the way in which the category A is to be type and task trained and subsequently authorised needs to be described within the Part 145 AMO’s exposition.
6.2 A regulation 30 of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 (CAR) aircraft maintenance organisation – via instrument CASA 180/11 – Authorisation – category A maintenance authority holder in a CAR 30 organisation – Exemption – from regulation 66.130 of CASR 1998, may also utilise the services of category A licence holders to carry out and certify for any of the category A licence tasks listed within Appendix II of the Part 145 MOS. The Certificate of Approval (COA) holder needs to seek CASA delegations and authorisations to authorise category A personnel post type and task training.
And it goes on!!!
Last edited by Up-into-the-air; 1st May 2013 at 12:19. Reason: Spelling!!
Here we go with another classic:
Allow an applicant for an CAMO to include other than Regular Public Transport (RPT) aircraft in the CAMO application Issue Aircraft operators with a CAMO may have responsibility to manage the airworthiness of non-RPT aircraft. Currently Part 42 of the CASR only applies to aircraft authorised to operate in RPT.
This current regulatory situation, in addition to the CAMO, requires the operator to have (for the aircraft to which Part 42 does not apply) a Maintenance Controller, Maintenance Control Manual and policy/procedures to meet CAR 1988 requirements.
If the higher regulatory requirement of a CAMO, on a purely voluntary basis, can be allowed to cover the operator’s non-RPT aircraft, the expected outcome is reduced costs, improved safety and efficiency gains. Legislative change, in an adjustment to the Part 42 application statement would be required to effect the proposed change. The change would allow the CAMO to add non-RPT aircraft to their approval – on a voluntary basis.
read it here:
Civil Aviation Safety Authority – Project MS 13/11
Last edited by 601; 30th Jul 2013 at 22:40.
From the Proof Senate Hansard of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee hearings of 14 Feb 2005, pages 124/5, at: http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/senate/commttee/S8083.pdf
Mr Byron—We do not have a firm completion date at this stage, but we should be able to generate that fairly soon. Mr Gemmell mentioned the refocus, I suppose, that I imposed on the organisation in late 2003-04 on getting the rules right and getting the quality. I found it necessary late last year to articulate in a bit more detail some guiding principles about how I wanted that done and who I wanted to be involved in the process.
I have issued some guiding principles on the formulation of new regulations and, if necessary, manuals of standards that accompany them. I have, I suppose, imposed on the system an additional layer of consultation, to assure me that the final draft rules that I send to the minister for consideration by the parliament are the right ones and that they address very carefully risks that are real and necessary issues that must be picked up by regulations. I felt it was necessary to do that to make sure that I have the right rules. I am not going to put my signature to anything that I do not think adequately addresses safety issues.
Senator MARK BISHOP—When do you think those regulations will go to the minister?
Mr Byron—I anticipate we would start sending some of them from about the middle of this year. I do not see this delaying the overall program excessively. We have an action item to develop a plan to forward to the minister about when we plan to have them to the minister, and I assume that plan would be done in the next couple of months. I would be hopeful that it would not be long after early 2006 that most of the draft rules are delivered to the minister.
[My bolding]
According to Table C of CASA’s Cost Recovery Impact Statement (available here: http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_asset…final_2013.pdf) the estimated costs of “Safety Standards” “Development” for FY 12-13 was $18,077,908.
A conservative estimate of the cost, so far, of the regulatory reform program is $200 million.
A rough estimate of the pages of regulations produced in the last 20 years is 2,000.
That’s about $100,000 per page.
Safety improvements arising from 2,000 pages of new regulations? Not obvious to me.
Efficiency improvements for industry arising from the 2,000 pages of new regulations? Not obvious to me.
Clarity achieved? Quite the opposite.
When will it end? Given the rate of ‘progress’ so far and the list of ‘active’ projects still to be completed, never.
The regulatory reform program will drift around forever.
This Frankenstein must be put out of its misery.
[A plea to potential posters: Please don’t post material that will get this thread locked.]
Last edited by Creampuff; 6th Aug 2013 at 18:08.
he wanted the rules to be ‘right’ and have ‘quality’ Typo…?? because what we actually get is QUANTITY. CASR pt 61….592 pages !!!!!
There have been other examples posted on pp that show the goobledegook and incomprehensibility of some/most of the reg avalanche.
CP you have a typo as well….
“This Frankenstein must be put out of OUR misery”
The bureaurats are certainly not miserable about on-going endless ‘troughing”
All their wordy junk has kept Oz extremely safe from falling aeroplanes or havnt you noticed?
It’s fairly simple, Wally et al:
As long as people refrain from:
1. Posting in riddles, sea shanties and other spruiks of fantasy that seem to dominate these kind of threads, and;
2. Engaging in direct slander and character assassination (see the post by the owner at the top of both our forums);
the thread will remain.
Find it difficult to respect our wishes (on behalf of the owner)? Find somewhere else to peddle your cause, or expect action from the mod team
Last edited by Tidbinbilla; 6th Aug 2013 at 18:54.
Creampuff,
Excellent post. The last bit of the quote in your bold could have been lifted from Sir Humphries from ‘Yes Prime Minister’.
But….
How will change be effected? B!tc#!ng about it on line here? I don’t see that making much difference?
As pointed out on another thread, there is a ‘contact the director’ link on the casa website (which I have used). I suspect that will be given as much heed as the guy asking for spare change out the front of the casa building in Canberra.
I guess it’s a start though.
But, what is the answer? How do the people that these (over) regulations affect the most, bring about a change?
Seriously!
Field an independent Senate candidate in QLD and NSW (biggest Aviation states) for the Hangar Party.
How many people are employed in Aviation in these two states?
…enough to get one senator up in each?
HL is on the money: Elect and lobby independents.
The Laborial party machines have demonstrated their respective lack of willingness to do anything meaningful.
<b< div=””>
And the purpose of this thread is???
Creampuff, you always post facts that we already know – Reg reform has taken almost 25 years, has cost $200 million, will never be completed and requires neutering. Fair enough. But we already know all this.
Whenever somebody posts a suggested fix, reasonable argument, something out of left field, or heavens above something that contains riddles they are either shut down, torn asunder or ridiculed. Fair enough.
Why don’t you tell us how you would suggest fixing this CAsA regulatory reform issue as well as the ATsB? It’s a genuine question, not a piss take and with no strings attached. Something like a 20 or 30 step plan or more if need be, detailed and workable (and without riddles). Because a number of us have tried many angles over the years and to date have achieved very little, acknowledged.
Your work may also assist the independent Senators considering some of them are proving to be the only ones who give a rats testicle about aviation matters that don’t pertain to business class seating and chairmans lounge priveledges.
004/Oleo
P.S
I have tried very very hard to ‘self moderate’ my comment and refrain from emotive language, riddles, direct insults at CAsA personnel or basically speak my mind fully. It doesn’t fit within the context of who I am, but out of respect for this thread I will continue to show restraint.
Last edited by 004wercras; 6th Aug 2013 at 22:48.
Well, I’d vote for them.
But I only see that doing a fraction of what needs be done…? Any senators that support aviation need a very public cause to hang their hat on.
As Creampuff quoted in the original post, a senator (Mark Bishop), asked a direct question with very little room for interpretation or ambiguity, and got a load of political double speak about scheduling a meeting to get a plan to tell them about their plan, and that won’t happen for a few months?!
When truckies don’t like how things are being thrust upon them, bam, road blockade of Parliament House, go slow, news coverage, 60 minutes cover story etc etc.
Nurses down tools (bedpans?) for a stop work meeting and it gets the first 5 minutes of nightly news on all channels, and they get change effected.
Now, I’m well aware that pilots haven’t had the best of luck with large scale industrial action (pilots strike, qantas grounding) but something more needs to happen to make an essentially unaccountable, unelected public servant, change this dogs breakfast of regulation into something simple pilots can understand!
I can see the AFAP pilot jobs website of the future if this continues –
MECIR
1000 multi
Masters degree in law with a 55% case win ratio
QC preferred
I dunno… Maybe I’m just dreaming…
What is needed is a set of cost and efficiency benchmarks between CASA, and Canada, New Zealand, US FAA, European union and possibly other countries for their air regulator, ATSB and Airservices equivalent.
The numbers that need to be calculated include off the top of my head:
Regulatory cost per aircraft.
Regulatory cost per:
– Aircraft hour flown
– Miles flown.
– per flight.
– per passenger km.
Representative aircraft operating costs per hour, preferably broken down by cost category
These need to be calculated per year, per decade, Also in long term moving averages.
The data needs to be referenced as to source.
Then there needs to be some discussion of the comparisons and results.
If Australia shows up well as an efficient regulator – well, you have just lost your argument about how bad the Australian system really is.
How do costs compare? That should tell you who is screwing who. We can then delve into how and why they are screwing you..
If, perchance, as some of you suspect, the data shows that CASA, ATSB, etc are bloated non performers, be prepared to discuss the following statement:
“We aren’t really bloated, it’s just that Australia is different”.
“The data is wrong”.
“Our costs include stuff that others don’t”.
“But we’ve already changed, your data is too old”.
“It’s not our fault, the Government made us do it this way”.
I first did part of one of these for Econometrician Robin Hocking who was instrumental in destroying the Two airline domestic policy.
At Coopers and Lybrand I did this for Telecom (Telstras predecessor) that conclusively demonstrated how bloated that institution had become. The Board didn’t like that result, unfortunately for me.
With a little bit of luck, ICAO will have done all the data collection for you, the International Telecommunication Union certainly had it by country when I “did” Telecom.
Unless and until you can produce these facts and a cogent argument for change, and the money it will save, you are wasting your time.
I note that Airservices are NOT a member of CANSO (Civil AIr Navigation Services Organisation) who have been benchmarking their performance against each other for years.
Since memberhsip and benchmarking would no doubt entail lots of visits to CANSO HQ in Holland, one has to wonder if the potential pain caused by joining the benchmarking exercise outweighed the joy inherent in all those overseas trips?
Link to 2012 benchmarking report:
http://www.canso.org/cms/streambin.a…=92AF6FDB-1EDB
list of participating members:
AAI (India)
Airports Authority of India
Airways New Zealand
Welcome to Airways – New Zealands Air Navigation Service Provider (ANSP)
DCAC (Cyprus)
????????? ???????????? ??? ?????
Dutch-Caribbean
dc-ansp.org
Page 18 of 115
AENA (Spain)
http://www.aena.es
ANS Czech Republic
Air Navigation Service
DHMI (Turkey)
Devlet Hava Meydanlar? ??letmesi Genel Müdürlü?ü
EANS (Estonia)
Lennuliiklusteeninduse AS
AEROTHAI (Thailand)
Aeronautical Radio of Thailand LTD
ATNS (South Africa)
Air Traffic and Navigation Services – ATNS
Dubai Air Navigation Services
http://www.dubaiairnav.gov.ae
FAA ATO (USA)
FAA: Home
CANSO Global ANS Performance Report 2012 – Main Report
Finavia (Finland)
Etusivu ? Finavia
LFV (Sweden)
Välkommen till LFV – www.lfv.se
NATS (UK)
NATS | A global leader in air traffic control and airport performance
NAVIAIR (Denmark)
Naviair – FORSIDE
SENEAM (Mexico)
Servicios a la Navegacion en el Espacio Aereo Mexicano – SCT
1.1.
HungaroControl (Hungary)
HungaroControl
LGS (Latvia)
LGS – – Latvijas Gaisa Satiksme
NAV CANADA
NAV CANADA
ROMATSA (Romania)
ROMATSA
SMATSA (Serbia & Montenegro)
http://www.smatsa.rs
IAA (Ireland)
http://www.iaa.ie
LPS (Slovak Republic)
http://www.lps.sk
NAV Portugal
NAV
Sakaeronavigatsia Ltd (Georgia)
Sakaeronavigatsia
I dunno Sunny, a simple page count aught to resolve the matter…..
It’s not so much that the ‘reform’ has been costly or taken a while to get to critical mass. For mine, it’s that there is no ‘reform’ to speak of; we seem to have the same old stuff, re hashed and larded with traps for the unwary. All that seems to have been done is to roll the CAO up into the CAR, warts and all, tighten the loop holes and launch.
I don’t see simple, clearly defined outcome based resolution i.e. R101 – Don’t run out of fuel. The onus is then on the company (individual) to produce a fuel policy within the prescribed minimums which ensures that silence will not prevail. The rules are basically simple enough.
What I find is that it’s not the “rules” per se that cause the problems; but the application. It’s a simple enough matter to write an operational policy for compliance; but the monster is revealed when some FOI or AWI has had a blue with the missus and decides that today, you are the anti Christ of aviation – then the fun begins; ask Quadrio, Butson or Kilen, they will explain your own elegant expression – Embuggerance in robust, basic Anglo Saxon.
Reform the regulator, the rules will surely follow.
Last edited by Kharon; 7th Aug 2013 at 06:48. Reason: No Minnie, we are not ploughing through that lot – Kettle on ?
Sunny,
Why didn’t we think of that during the currency of the PAP/CASA Review?? — Hang on, I remember, we did!!
I still have copies of all the documents somewhere for Part 91, where we did (item by item) a comparison, side by side spreadsheet, of the equivalent sub-regulation from (from memory), as well as AU,NZ, CA,US,UK and ICAO.
Not surprisingly, beside quite a number of Australian regulations, some or all of the other countries’ lists were a blank space.
One of the ones that sticks in my mind was the AU regulations/orders about dropping things from aircraft (you know the ones — they put paid to Sunday morning flour bombing and streamer cutting competitions at the local aero club) AU — about 9 pages of regulation and orders, most others countries, one or two paragraphs, plus advisory material.
The Review recommendation was a one paragraph regulation, outcome based, with advisory material as to how to comply.
9 pages of regulatory material reduces to about 30 easily understandable words.
Later, long after the PAP had gone, Bruce Byron actually produced a policy directive, binding on CASA staff, as to how all rules were to be justified — based entirely on the principles used by the PAP/CASA Review — which in themselves were nothing new, just lifted straight from the recommendations of the Productivity Commission/Office of Best Practice Regulation handbook, the then Australia/NZ Standard for risk management, and other similar sources from Attorney-General, Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, etc.
As I recall (it’s no longer on the CASA web site) the first requirement of the Byron directive was to establish that there was an air safety problem that required a regulation (as opposed to less draconian methods of securing compliance). If that was established ( as opposed to something that was for administrative bureaucratic convenience — a regulatory nono that CASA routinely ignores ) the next step was quantitative cost/benefit analysis (not cost/ effectiveness — CASA can’t tell the difference), including factoring the CASA claimed “benefits” for “proponent bias”, which various Canberra based guidelines put at up to 50%, ie; the claimed financial/ societal etc. benefits of a measure are commonly overstated by up to 50%.
Unsurprisingly, by this stage, a large number of regulations were knocked out, to the distress of those in CASA who believe “regulation” is the only answer (as in the new proposals for SAR/EMS operations NPRM — to be regulated to the greatest possible extent — as RPT).
By this stage, draft regulations were starting to look remarkably like NZ or CA or FAA — but simpler and easier to read.
One “person” in the the CASA Office of Legal Counsel actually put forward the proposition that “outcome based” rules, that were Government policy, would not work in Australian aviation, because, unlike NZ/CA/US/UK. neither CASA nor the Australia aviation industry were “mature enough” for anything other than highly detailed and absolutely prescriptive regulation.
As we well know now, all of the above drafts has been dropped — it is even claimed now that such activities as risk justification and cost/benefit analysis are contrary to the Civil, Aviation Act 1988. Strangely, all the lawyers involved over the years, including several lawyers on the Board, including a Supreme Court Judge as Chairman, apparently missed what has apparently been so blindingly obvious to the present day CASA Board and management.
As for ATC, have a look at the Airspace Act, and particularly the first “airspace directive”, signed off by Truss. Now emasculated under the present Government — and look at the mess Airservices are in!
It is a very sad story, that has cost Australia far more than the $2-300M directly spent by CASA, we have lost a large segment of the industry, either gone offshore or just gone.
And here was Albo, just last week, at the CAPA conference, saying what a great place Australia is, to do aviation business, with all these beaut. country aerodromes where we could be training foreign students.
I wonder why the training industry didn’t think of that — Hang On!! , I remember, they did!!
—- but have been largely put out of business, with excessive costs and regulation, compared to competitor countries. CASA isn’t the only offender here, there are plenty of other Australian government entities who have done their bit to help boost pilot training in NZ/US/CA/etc.
Tootle pip!!
Last edited by LeadSled; 10th Aug 2013 at 19:15.
My $0.02c+GST worth.
Sub contract the entire regulatory function to the kiwi’s. They seem to do much better, and the USA always gets the “American” label as being bad for you. So if we took $200M over 10 years and invested it in NZ would that not be good for both countries?
Sounds silly I know, but how hard would it actually be to do, compared to the collective hardship we suffer now?
I once thought it was a silly idea, but the more I talk to smart people in industry the more it sounds like the right thing to do.
If I were king for a day…..they say.
Once again, I agree with you, including not just the “regulations”. but a re-write of the Act along NZ lines, particularly S.14 of the NZ Act, Functions of the Minister.
Tootle pip!!
<b< div=””>
If they must write the regs to cover all legal possibilities (I’m sifting through draft CASR 161 and its associated ‘explanations’ as we speak), why don’t they produce straight-talking guidebooks or similar to go along with them?
Have a plain language ‘what can and can’t I do’ guide for each main set of rules, with clear disclaimers along the lines of:
‘this isn’t the regs, it’s just a guide, so check the real thing before you act.’
That way, you could be quickly and simply reminded of the basic requirements and directed to the appropriate legislation for further reading, rather than having to sift through miles of garble to ferret out the good gen.
I know CASA make lots of info products, some of which are pretty good, but wouldn’t it be great to have concise, clear guides coming from the source of the legislation explaining what they’re on about?
<b< div=””>
Sarcs, when Macair went tits up, the QLD government hit the panick button as to how they would service western Queensland routes that were serviced by the now defunct airline. The paperwork I have seen indicates that to cover this gap the Queensland government approached Skytrans and basically handed them the work. Fort Fumble was then asked to do a risk assessment on each port (desktop only due to time constraints) and I believe between 8 – 11 ports were fully assessed in less than one working week. (I am sure an FOI request would confirm all the dates, locations and details in a comprehensive transparent way. Perhaps all the pages will be there as well?) Anybody who is skilled in the methodology of conducting comprehensive risk assessments would know that up to 11 ports in under 5 working days, via desktop for an operator who wasn’t flying there already, had different aircraft type and a host of other differences would know that this is a crock and an impossible task. Paperwork was filled out simply to provide an audit trail that the process had been undertaken prior to operation. A box ticking exercise and another display of FF jumping to attention when a minister or state government tells it to.
As for the Lockhart investigation, your comments are precise Sarcs. Alan Stray may have been at the ATsB at the time, but it is the events beyond his control that I refer to that I express dismay at. Alan certainly knew CAsA was a two bit shonky outfit not to be trusted, and subsequent inquiries have proven that. CAsA escaped a pineapple over Lockhart, and that fact was beyond Alan’s power and influence range. After all, Alan was only a very small piece of a giant jigsaw. Even in that time period Messr Stray had internal politics knocking at his door. Honesty and integrity are not the favored approach when Ministers and bureaucracies are not painted in robust light.
Last edited by 004wercras; 13th Aug 2013 at 13:44.
Share this:
Like this:
Related