Part 91 – A Deafening Silence.

[Kharon]

If you can't work 91 out for yourself, at least read the AOPA response and weigh in behind it.

Kudos to the AOPA for their sensible, balanced response; predictably GA oriented which does not, IMHO push the CASA to offer any form of satisfactory response, more likely a bemused wave off. (Thank you children, now run along while the grown ups attend the destruction of GA party).

The CASA road show is totally focused on continuing to cynically confound and confuse the Muppet Show, now showing at a Senate near you.

Ben Sandilands (Plane Talking) made a stab at the 'new' rules, a short (I suspect assisted) piece which high lights quite well the total bollix up this legislation is.

Ah, I can see it all; me sitting here, beard on the ground, Gin and Pprune for breakfast in 10 years time listening to the endless gripes, whinges and wheezes about how CASA stole the march on the industry back in 2011 and saddled it with a piece of crap legislation i.e. Part 91.

Read PNG part 91 rules, read the NZ part 91rules, read the USA part 91 rules then:-

Wake up and smell the corruption. We still live in a democracy don't we???.

Selah.

[bentleg]

AOPA response is here (http://www.aopa.com.au/assets/118/AOPA_Response_Part_91_Consultation_Draft_13MAY11.pdf) and their supplementary response is here (http://www.aopa.com.au/assets/133/AOPA_Response_Part_91_Supplementary_Comment_30MAY11.pdf)

[aroa]

I chucked in my 2 bobs worth re this Part that I read in its entirety.

I have not read a more disgusting, convoluted, quasi-legal, BS upchuck.

Should be titled.. Crimes that Pilots could/ will/ maybe commit.

Apart from the abject failure to the GA industry , it fails ALL the "Government criteria for modern regulation..:\

The Govt does NOT require everything to be Strict Liability

It breaches the Govt guideline on what constitutes a 'crime'.

Where's the simplicity as new regs are supposed to be so written..?

Any ecomonic considerations..?? Any safety case for some of this tripe.??

Written by para(site)"legals" for lawyers who will reap the later benefits.

I finalized my critique with the sign off...Za Stalina ! .. For Stalin.
Long will live the CASA Soviet. Cop this Diktat , you peasants

Why?... because all the Govts past and present have no nouse or interest in fixing the problems or enforcing their requirements re regs.

And at the top of CASA there is no leadership or effort for sorting out the problems either.

So good people just keep standing under the fan and copping what you get hit with.

Adopt the NZ regs .. for trans Tasman sensibilty??? NO way.. better to keep a horde of drones scribbling reams of fresh BS. Bugger the amount of paper, or the cost. Lots more taxpayers dollars to urinate up against the wall where that lot came from.

:mad::mad::mad:

[T28D]

AROA, Pithy and well said, it is a crock of you know what written by amateurs who simply don't understand anything about Risk Mitigation through safe practices.

Nope we need a hammer in the head to make us all safe. Sheesh !!!!

[Jabawocky]

Agreed to all the above....... Even T28D:ooh:

[aussie027]

Why doesn't someone who has read it all, understands all the BS etc send a copy and a letter not only to the CASA dept seeking comments on this debacle but more importantly to the Senate Committee and/or top the individual senators for their personal attention if it is out of the bounds of reference of the committee.
Given the safety and legal implications of this mess Im sure it could fit under the terms of reference as it applies to all cats of flt ops.

I'm sure they'd love to have a read at how badly this is drafted/worded esp compared to the FAA part 91.???

Maybe they can get some action done to get it changed before it is finalized.

[Sunfish]

Part 91 has just about killed my thoughts of continuing to fly for pleasure.

The only thing that is stopping me giving it away is a friends comment yesterday that you have to see the waters around Birdsville and Lake Eyre in the next month .

[superdimona]

If you give up flying, that means less aircraft for CASA to worry about. It means less risk of mid-air collisions, less risk of you'll blunder into Class C, less risk of engine failure etc. The end result is Aviation Safety is improved. In CASA's books that's a step forward :-(

[VH-XXX]

The only thing that is stopping me giving it away is a friends comment yesterday that you have to see the waters around Birdsville and Lake Eyre in the next month .

There are plenty of charter operators out there that can help you out with that. That's if they aren't thinking the same thing as you!


I know RA-Aus higher-powers are doing what they can for the part 91 with concerns about the impact of it. Whilst I haven't been through it in great detail and compared to the existing, it would seem the built-up areas bit could be a show-stopper, but that would appear to affect all users, not just RA-Aus, unless I missed a component.

[aroa]

I cc'd my message re to the good Senator X.. I have recently sent material re 206 and etc... so he is getting some info feeds

I was recently accused of putting populations at risk by flying photograhy over built up areas in a SE aircraft. Its the sort of BS statement you can expect from CASA and its fans, to imply that what you have done is so terribly unsafe. I think an A 380 down in Sydney could clean up many more buildings than I ever would. But that's OK. :eek:

So if RAA and SE LSA want to pass over towns and suburbs, thats pretty risky so it has to cease. One has to wonder, who tf are these Richard Craniums that come to these conclusions. From Planet Earth.?
When modern engines are more reliable than ever, and millions of a/c have passed overhead squillions of houses for the last 50 years with VERY few lodged in the roof... its a "safety" case absolutely without foundation.

Judging from what I see on TV lately there are more cars exiting roads and flying into houses than aeroplanes.!! Ban cars in built up areas?... I dont think so.
Why pick on us just because we're in an aeroplane?

Sunfish.. I've noted many of yr posts. Buy one, restore one or build one (all very rewarding), whatever... but FLY one. And enjoy it, as you will.

Fly one, in spite of the stupid reg. environment, and " bad law" that deny us our rights and liberties.
Help piss the bastards off by making more aviation, not less or none.
If the bug has bit hard, you''ll never regret it. Go for it.!

[thorn bird]

Given that corruption appears to be condoned now in the Australian Public service, well in CASA's case anyway, what hope is there of getting any form of sensible amendement, I would suggest Zilch!
The control of CASA is now in the hands of Lawyers and egomaniac misfits who hold themselves up as "Experts" on everything aviation, backed up with a charter devoid of any reference to, or requirement to, balance the "Safety benefit" against the cost, example CASR 91, there is little hope that anything the industry might put forward would ever be taken seriously.
Any licence or Certificate issued by CASA now is just an invitation to break the law. I can see the lawyers rubbing their hands with glee, daydreaming about that new Mercedes, Yacht,holiday home, while the bean pushers count the flood of money into CASA's coffers.
Bit like speed camera's really, revenue or safety?

[Kharon]

All the Bar room barristers silenced, the great expert collective Pprune legal minds confounded. Silence is the stern response.


Mark my words children and mark 'em well. If the likes of Dick Smith do not get behind opposing this legislation, and use their skills both political and commercial, the CASA will own you, lock, stock and two smoking exhaust pipes.


Every flight will be like trying to sneak the car home after 3 beers (maybe you is or maybe you isn't)


What it is - Too lazy ?, too self absorbed ?. Or just too dumb? Perhaps just far too concerned about 'not rocking the ol' boat'.


Loads of rubbish here about PA 31 endorsements, the price of fish and various collective aviation mind mush, although there is some real concern shown about 'award rates', but not too much say about the rubbish CASA is serving you.


What is it ?, too lazy, too thick, too scared, not enough knowledge; or perhaps, is it just that having been spoon fed since leaving the tit, you are incapable of thinking beyond the next endorsement or “charter” which will put a paltry 5, 10 or even 20 hours in your log book.


Fellah's; this legislation is bloody important to you, what's holding you up ???.


Where are the great, wonderful, all powerful Pprune legal experts.


Time to get moving boys, earn you title and pay.


Selah.

[Frank Arouet]

The great apathetic aviation industry just don't understand this sort of challenge. Sorry mate, but I've tried and I'm tired. Lost thousands and couldn't be bothered to rally around another bonfire when it's not even cracker night.

There are probably two dozen right now doing what you want, but unfortunately, advertising it here only serves to alert the misfits and help them plan their retirement.

Have faith that those who are actually doing something are, and those that are not, may be inspired by their attempts.

There is only a political solution to this problem, (CASA), and the only way of motivating them is to ridicule and embarrass them in front of their constituents.

A Bi-Partisan solution exists to get rid of the Deputy Director, but I doubt they are savvy enough to see the political "out" available for them.

Get rid of him and The Director, in who's bailiwick the whole $hitfight belongs, may follow, but you then have the problem of The Associate Director, now being groomed for the position to make our lives even more miserable.

That is the challenge, not the apathetic who have been beaten so much that they can't think objectively because of the concussion from spindoctoring and an inane belief that just one misused word in CASA, (SAFETY), is a holy grail to be respected.

Give us this day our daily bread......................

[Sunfish]

Too late mate.

General Aviation is a criminal offense.

[thorn bird]

RIP GA Australia.
Khassie you have to admit it was a great life while it lasted, all us old farts will still have our memories and experiences to reminiss over, the bastards can never take that away from us.
Its the young'uns I feel sorry for, no more will kids be able to hang over the airport fence and dream of "one day I'll do that".
The cruel thing is remembering how great it was, and watching this cancer that our regulator has become, eating away at the essence of what aviation is, reducing it to insignificance as the jackals circle snapping up the prime cuts, watching our airports diminished to shopping centres and Industrial estates, or if the latest rumour is true about Bankstown, detention centres. A slow and undignified death of what was once a great way of life.
Of course the young ones coming through focus on the next twenty hours, job, paypacket, etc. thats only natural.
What they and our regulator forget is that GA has always been a service industry and is bound by the same conventions,cost and service.
Make it too expensive and those that patronise it will look for alternatives, dont service the customers needs, and they'll look for alternatives. Without an "affordable safety" direction our regulator mearly focuses on the "safety" aspect and ignors the "affordable", with the inevitable result we are seeing.
Remember back in the two airline days when, unlike today, it cost significantly more for the plane ticket than the cab fare to the airport.
A lot of people would drive from Sydney to Brisbane or elsewhere, to attend a weekend wedding or other function than fly. Did they consider the comparison in "safety" terms? na it came down to cost. Wonder how many people died on the roads as a result?
What will be the "Safety outcome" of the regulator killing off GA? Regardless of their self serving spin, GA is still a very safe means of transport.
How do we fight them? I have no idea. CASA is now so corrupt I doubt there is anything anyone can do. Voice your concerns openly and the brown shirts will turn up at your door, given the state of the regulations there will always something they can find to prove you are a hienous criminal. It may be the cowards way out, but its human nature, why would anyone expose themselves to that? Perhaps we should push for the Mafia to take over regulation, at least they have the sense not to kill the hand that feeds them, and in a lot of ways are far more honest than CASA.

[Frank Arouet]

Yes, at least you know where you stand with The mafia.

[FlyForFun1]

This proposal (http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:PWA::pc=PARTS091)is merely and attempt to codify into regulation what is already "good safe flying practices", which we all do.

Only it goes too far.

It is not designed for pilots, it is designed for the regulatory enforcement body and its agents. Just as road regulations are not really designed for drivers, they are designed for use by police/enforcement agencies.

The draft's particular use of "Strict Liability" is of concern. You were there, you did it, hence you are guilty! This also allows for the use of electronic and camera based prosecutions... Look out for those speed cameras on the LJR's???

What will make this difficult for most of us it the use of "its all an offence" followed by specific exceptions. This is a lazy and imprecise method of enacting laws/regulations, and broadens the allowable scope for prosecution. It's alot easier to prove "you don't fit the exceptions, therefore you broke the regulation"

It also makes innovative changes far more difficult to implement. What if someone comes up with a portable electronic device (mobile phone) that is proven to not affect aircraft instruments? Every time there is an appropriate innovation the regulations must be re-written to allow the new.

Again, I would compare it to road regulations: Only if they were written as this is then it would be "Illegal to start a car if you don't know which way you are going" except (ia) if you had an approved Melways / UBD and (ib) you were endorsed on the Melways / UBD or (ii) it was Sunday.
What about if you have a GPS? Well, wait while we re-write the regulation, wont be long, just a consultation process and we'll be done.... At least as a regulation it doesn't have to go through parliamentary approval!

I have many issues with what is proposed, this is just a brief rant because I didn't see this proposal till after close of submissions..... I have such alot of catching up to do.....

When you take good practices and turn them into regulation/law, the only thing you risk is the original good practices.

[Sunfish]

It is a criminal offense if the aircraft is fitted with a beacon, not to turn the beacon on before starting the engine.

What if the beacon goes U/S between the time you do your pre flight and the time the engine is started?

Is it a defence that you have listed the beacon as U/S in the MR for non compliance?

What if you are in the middle of nowhere and you have a beacon fitted that is u/s? Are you supposed to ground the aircraft?

This legal disease is infecting all GA activity. The latest Cessna C172 manuals don't even have landing and takeoff charts, only short field charts.

Is everything forbidden unless it is compulsory?

[thorn bird]

Yeah Sunny I can see it now.

Scenario 1.

Young sprog with a plane load of self loading cargo, eye's open the size of dinner plates while said sprog gives the new "briefing' about how unsafe GA aircraft are compared with RPT, but not to worry, if you all die or get smashed up there is insurance which will hopefully pay out something.
Guy in the back on cell phone to lawyer (another strict liability)
" mate I'm serverley stressed here, how much compo can I claim for Psychological damage?? ...wadda ya mean cant?? the asylum seekers can get away with it!!"

Scenario 2

departing RW 11 BK..Boom!! engine quits, couple of hundred feet just climbing....Hmm options are??
"MAY DAY MAY DAY MAY DAY..BK tower can you tally up the penalty points incurred for the following options so I can descide which option is cheaper".

Oh my lord the loonies really are loose in the asylum!!

[aroa]

We should take a leaf/ page out of the Murray Darling water-user protestors book, and have a fire on the steps of (non) Aviation house wherin we chuck copies of Part 91. To demonstate disgust and anger at such rubbish. :ok:

With media present would be a good look... and like the water users... maybe? get some bloody action on this load of crap. :\

Albo sees something on TV... you just never can tell. The penny may drop..?
I wish....:eek: