PNG versus AUS

[Mach E Avelli]

Interested in hearing your views of which is the better set of current rules to understand and work with.
I suggest that only those with recent experience in both jurisdictions contribute.
Keep debate in English, because not everyone is up to Tok Pisin.
I will kick off with my views. PNG generally has more clarity, with fewer contradictions. There is considerable flexibility in, for example, the Flight & Duty program that operators may choose. Where there are grey areas, it seems that when they tried to modify the NZ regulation to PNG conditions, some people with a lack of experience in drafting regulations omitted a few words here and there. Easily fixed.
About the only area where there is a great disconnect between the rules and what operators are forced to do is aerodrome standards. The standards are written, but the aerodromes will never comply. They need to go back to some form of 'Developmental Air Service' standard as existed way back in 'dem good ol days'. When DC3s had JATO bottles. But I digress....
CASA PNG is easier to deal with, but quite deficient in staff and expertise, so there is insufficient oversight. Hence operators get away with stuff more than is healthy.

[chimbu warrior]

No question...........PNG rules are much easier to read and understand. No chopping and changing between CAR's and CAO's (and hence no contradictions), plus clear definition of the type of operation (135, 121 etc).

CASA PNG is easier to deal with, but quite deficient in staff and expertise, so there is insufficient oversight. Hence operators get away with stuff more than is healthy.

A bit of an understatement there, but most of their problems relate to the government's failure to allocate resources.

[blackhand]

The one advantage thet PNG has is very little private flying and all light aircraft commercial operations are carried out under 119 and 135.
PNG CAA did not vacilate and overly consult industry prior to introducing the "new" regs.

Having been in PNG when the CARs 2000 were introduced, I can say the process was a lot easier than now in Australia, when converting an existing CAR30 organisation to Part 145.

The Australian Part 66 licence is indeed strange to decipher, consider that it lists all the aircraft one can't certify for.

[ThereISlifeafterQF]

I was also there during the years immediately before and after the new rules coming into effect, and apart from CAA (as they were at the time) having to get used to applying the new rules themselves, the use of the "whiz wheel" and their rule structure diagram made it easy to follow.
Things like the FPP criteria also make it easy for operators to determine who can hold the required positions. Isi tru !

[LeadSled]

Folks,
Based on my recent experience, Wilson Sagati's team is improving all the time. Sad about Jeff Hayes, he was a good bloke.

What has always got to me is that we, the Australian taxpayers, via the Balus program, financed the NZers to install the NZ style rules, so any mistake are not the locals, but probably the ex-CAA AU team that did the work. I certainly haven't found any problems with the PNG rules, and they beat the hell out of dealing here, not only the clarity of the rules, but the lack of "attitude" in CASA PNG.

The NZ style rules are spreading, the late country to adopt the NZ style rules, with a few local tweeks, is Mongolia.

Tootle pip!!