The point of this - CASA Reg 152 Interpretation and Instrument 405/09:
This is a great discussion, but behind all this is the fact that the Regs. are not crystal clear. What is worse, CASA are not dealing with this correctly by fixing errors in the regs. at Government level.
CASA, as the AAT points out can not vary regs.
This can only be done by Government.
Reg 152:
I have just been working with matters arising from this reg:
152 Parachute descents
(1) A person must not make a parachute descent if the descent is not:
(a) authorised in writing by CASA; and
(b) conducted in accordance with the written specifications of CASA.
Penalty: 25 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) It is a defence to a prosecution under subregulation (1) if the parachute descent was a necessary emergency descent.
Note A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matter in subregulation (3) (see subsection 13.3 (3) of the Criminal Code).
CASA have issued an Instrument - CASA 405/09, which does not meet the requirements of reg 152 [in fact it changes the requirements of Reg 152].
As a result, the Parachute Federation appear to be in breach of reg 152.
The recent AAT decision, [
Caper Pty Ltd T/a Direct Air Charter and Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2011] AATA 181 (21 March 2011) ] tells CASA that it must use the regs correctly or face the consequences.
In Instrument 405/09, at section 11, the instrument is incorrect, as there must be a written agreement in place where a parachute operation occurs between the operator of a registered airport, CASA and AirServices for the operation to occur regularly from controlled airspace.
The instrument is not clear in this requirement, and does not appear to call for the signed agreement. There must be some insurance implications as well for operators.
Another CASA bungle??