Australian Warbirds
Thread Starter
Australian Warbirds
Can anyone provide a balanced view about what's been going on recently with AWAL? AGM deferred, rumours, denials of rumours, personality clashes, you know, the usual stuff that happens in Australian GA associations...
Last edited by Captain Dart; 18th Jan 2013 at 01:25.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 768
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Matter heard in theFederal Court over the past 2 days the coterie of ego centric goons who attempted to manipulate the AWAL into their private fiefdom have comprehensively come undone, lost on all counts and costs awarded against them.
Sad day for the members who have been kept in the dark over this travesty and the actions of the AWAL Secretary that precipitated it all.
The AWAL bank balance will now look somewhat grim due to this foolishness as they are up for: court costs, Barrister, Solicitor, Attendance air fares, accomodation.
New AGM in 28 days to be notified, with some clear thinking and properly informed membership the AWAL can move ahead in a manner moreclosely aligned with proper governance and good ethical standards.
Sad day for the members who have been kept in the dark over this travesty and the actions of the AWAL Secretary that precipitated it all.
The AWAL bank balance will now look somewhat grim due to this foolishness as they are up for: court costs, Barrister, Solicitor, Attendance air fares, accomodation.
New AGM in 28 days to be notified, with some clear thinking and properly informed membership the AWAL can move ahead in a manner moreclosely aligned with proper governance and good ethical standards.
Last edited by T28D; 18th Jan 2013 at 04:06.
Thread Starter
Thanks T28, this is the first I've heard of all of this.
So that's where my fees are going.
So that's where my fees are going.
Last edited by Captain Dart; 18th Jan 2013 at 05:46.
Captain Dart,
Far more serious than a personality clash, more issues that go to the heart of good corporate governance, and duties of directors of a public company. AWAL is a public company, the Corporations Act 2001 applies.
The legal action, taken by the President, to preserve good corporate governance, should never have been necessary. It was very courageous of him to take a huge personal financial risk (that costs would be awarded against him, if he lost) in preserving the true interests of the members of the organisation.
At the heart of the matters at issue are new and amended regulations for some Experimental and all Limited Cat. aircraft, that will be highly controversial. They will inevitably be a highly divisive issue for the membership, once the real extent of the proposed regulation is understood by members who are aircraft owners.
Tootle pip!!
Far more serious than a personality clash, more issues that go to the heart of good corporate governance, and duties of directors of a public company. AWAL is a public company, the Corporations Act 2001 applies.
The legal action, taken by the President, to preserve good corporate governance, should never have been necessary. It was very courageous of him to take a huge personal financial risk (that costs would be awarded against him, if he lost) in preserving the true interests of the members of the organisation.
At the heart of the matters at issue are new and amended regulations for some Experimental and all Limited Cat. aircraft, that will be highly controversial. They will inevitably be a highly divisive issue for the membership, once the real extent of the proposed regulation is understood by members who are aircraft owners.
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 768
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Warbirdsin combat over planned rule changes
Irate Australian Warbirds Association Ltdmembers fear AWAL could be shut down until it gets its affairs in order, anevent that could mean a mass grounding of their fleet until the issue ofregulatory oversight is resolved. They are now saying their organisation is “ina right royal mess,” following a bitter annual general meeting on November 24 thatended in an adjournment without resolution of serious issues. The organisationrepresents some 300-400 members, and about 250 aircraft.
Members believe that unless the mess issorted out, downstream damage could also include the grounding of numerous experimentalcategory aircraft, which their organisation is seeking CASA delegation tomanage in an extension of its self-administration mandate.
The row developed when some board memberssought to displace sitting Chairman Kim Rolphe-Smith, install their ownnominees to replace departed board members, and purported to appoint a newchairman without a membership vote in compliance withthe Corporations Act 2001 which details the rules for the administrationof public companies.
The purported board meeting took placeduring the adjournment of the AGM and was arguably not a permitted act duringan adjournment of the AGM, when the powers of the board are limited.
AWAL was incorporated in 1989 as a non-profitpublic company limited by guarantee, to represent aircraft owners, operators,restorers, maintainers, historians and enthusiasts, and to help promote andpreserve Australia's military aviation heritage.
With the later establishment of certificationsfor “limited category aircraft,” AWAL was then proposed and approved as theindustry body to undertake self administration of the category under a CASAdelegation. The organisation currently has one paid executive, CEO SteveCrocker, who along with Secretary/Treasurer Jeff Muller, reports to an electedseven-member board, with Queensland warbird operator Kim Rolph-Smith as itscurrent President.
The organisation's first problems appearedwhen a BAC 167 Strikemaster crashed in 2006 during a warbird adventure flight,and (then) CASA director Bruce Byron almost grounded the Australian warbirdfleet. Two senior AWAL members approached CASA to acknowledge the issues,present a detailed submission on the way forward, and negotiate an agreedcourse of action to allow the fleet to keep flying. They reached an agreementthat AWAL would fund and provide the self-administration of limited categorywarbirds on behalf of CASA under the Civil Aviation Regulation (CAR) 262AN,which had been put in place for that purpose back in 1998.
The arrangement has since survived despite CASA’slack of progress in developing the regulatory framework, and the hostility ofelements within the regulator who don’t believe warbirds should fly, and are averseto the concept of experimental category aircraft into which some warbirds fall.
The experimental category was new in 1998,but since many had been pushing for it for a long time, its adoption was arelief for owners of homebuilt, historic and ex-military aircraft. Howeverlimited category (an Australian innovation) further provided the opportunityfor suitably certified aircraft to carry paying passengers on special warbirdadventures, which in turn provides revenue to hold the fleet to acceptablesafety and airworthiness standards for fare paying passengers.
The appointment of officials acceptable toCASA to administer limited category aircraft was central to the agreement, andAWAL was set up with an airworthiness specialist in charge of safetyindependent of the Board, and a chief executive officer as general manager,reporting to the Board and CASA as appropriate. Stephen Dines, a well-known CAR21 delegate and experimental/limited category expert, was appointed in theairworthiness role but was replaced when the present CEO Steve Crocker wasappointed. Subsequently, the controlling manual was also rewritten to give theCEO safety management control despite his non-airworthiness background.
What worriedmembers at the November AGM was that the CEO could now make safetydeterminations for which he was not qualified, and that he had also beenofficially contracted by CASA to help prepare Part 132 in draft legislation,which was set to become the regulatory suite for warbirds, when corporate jetsand some other operations were moved to another CASR Part. It is understoodthat certifications issued to AWAL are now under review, that no newcertifications are being issued, and that a number of projects are on hold pendingresolution.
"What we’re worried about now,"says one concerned AWAL member, "is that the Warbirds Association CEO haspowers that he is not qualified to exercise, because CASA either modified theprocedures manual or approved its modification, bypassing the qualificationrequirement. This was certainly done with CASA approval, although I’d speculatewithout CASA’s understanding of its ramifications. The new Part 132 isextremely onerous and imposes a massive burden compared with what we've had forthe last 14 years. This obviously suits CASA, but we should not have asituation where an organisation like Warbirds is having these onerousrequirements thrust upon them by their own CEO who is working together withCASA to write them.
“Oneexample among many is that the operating limitations have become more severe sothat in some aircraft it will be impossible to avoid flying over a built-up area,because if you’re at a cruise level of 15,000 feet and above cloud, you can'tbe sure that you’ll avoid flying over townships. That will no longer betolerated, and it will become an offence with severe penalties.
“Next,each limited category aircraft would be required to have an operating manualunder the new rules, which will have to be individually approved by AWAL onbehalf of CASA. There will be a pilot operating handbook to tell you how to flythe aeroplane, but there'll be another manual that tells you what you'reallowed to do with it, where you can go in it. At the moment the law says alimited category aircraft is limited by any conditions imposed by itscertificate of airworthiness. So those conditions exist for the whole category,and now they've been expanded by this part 132 into a requirement for approvedmanuals, which set out in great detail what you can and cannot do; and therewill be a huge cost to that."
Evenmore concerning, is an apparent move to require experimental category owners toupgrade their aircraft to limited category. This will be impossible for manyexisting aircraft, particularly those currently approved to perform at airshowsand exhibitions, many of which are heavily modified and incapable of qualifyingfor limited category. The move has been put forward to CASA as a way ofimproving AWAL’s revenue by requiring experimental category warbird aircraft tocome under its administration, as was admitted by a CASA person at the recentAGM.
Thepresent regulatory arrangements for experimental reflect exactly the governmentintentions for experimental exhibition aircraft. Although the proposed changesfly in the face of that Government policy, they appear to be ‘CASA policy’, anot uncommon concept among officials when they argue “the government has got itwrong.” It runs contrary to the legal position that CASA cannot propose rulesfor commercial advantage; it can only propose rules to Parliament for purposesof air safety. Changing rules to facilitate the commercial activities of AWALhas nothing to do with air safety, and some argue it does the opposite, transferringaircraft from direct CASA air safety surveillance, to a self-administrativebody.
“IfCASA wanted to allow the Warbirds Association to administer experimentalaircraft, they could just decree that it does so,” says one AWAL member. “Butwhat they're doing instead, is to say ‘no, you can't have an experimentalcertificate at all; you'll have to swap over to a limited CofA so that AWAL canadminister you.’ It's all being done so that the CEO can get some more moneyinto the organisation. It’s a quite unnecessary thing to do, it’s not viable,and it can't work for a lot of aeroplanes because a lot of them can't bemodified to come up to that standard. For many experimental aeroplanes to bebrought up to a standard that is acceptable in the limited certificationcategory is just too onerous, and not feasible. You'd be looking at maybe $100,000on some aeroplanes, where the whole point of the experimental category is thatyou don't have to do that if you don't need to.
“Butthe CEO and CASA are working together to disadvantage the experimental fleetfor the purpose of propping up the income of the Warbirds Association. At themeeting last week the words of Jeff Muller, the secretary, were ‘we have to dothis, because of membership leakage and financial leakage over the past fewyears.’ Membership leakage means that if somebody wanted to avoidself-administration they can swap their limited certificate of airworthinessfor an experimental one and then they wouldn't have to be administered at all.And therefore in Jeff Muller's mind, the answer is for all aircraft to have alimited CofA. It's a physical impossibility and they haven't worked all thisout yet, they just ‘think it will all be all right.’
"Andthose owners will be forced into self administration whether they need it orwant it. This is all very well, it will allow the Warbirds Association to havemore members to make it an economical proposition to provide administrationservices etc. However there are different certification requirements forexperimental aircraft versus a limited category aircraft. So by forcing theexperimental aircraft to upgrade to limited, the costs of doing that for a lotof aircraft will be prohibitive, and they'll just be sold or scrapped orgrounded."
Theproposal also seems to ignore for the fact that numerous experimental categoryaircraft owners require no additional administration at all. They fly theiraircraft with a CASA pilot licence and under the same regulations, they arerequired to use and approved maintenance organisation that is overseen by CASA,and they need to carry the same minimum equipment on board as everybody elsedoes. The same goes for amateur-built aircraft, about 90% of which are also inthe experimental category.
Membersare also concerned over what they believe are irregularities in AWAL’sadministration. They say these include failure to present company annualaccounts, non-notification of board member retirements, and one incorrect claim(amongst several) in a post-AGM newsletter, that the annual financial statement(not presented at the AGM) is audited, when it was not.
They are alsoconcerned at what they say is a non-compliant attempt to dislodge the incumbentpresident, when theCorporations Act 2001 – S 203Estates:
Director cannot be removed by other directors—publiccompanies
A resolution, request or notice of any or all of the directors ofa public company is void to the extent that it purports to:
(a) remove a director from their office; or
(b) require a director to vacate their office.
More than one member hasnow demanded that the CEO provide compliant documentation of company affairs,and several have told us they believe their CEO’s relationship with CASA needs examination by members as to whether itrepresents a conflict of interest
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 768
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now we wait for the conspiracy theory to kick in I am afraid if the DEFO action Not really just testing will the "hon Secretary" do the right and ethical thing and Foxtrot Oscar off , we wait with antipation.
Even more concerning, is an apparent move to require experimental category owners to upgrade their aircraft to limited category.
Thanks
Creamie,
There is no current link, the SCC has not been advised of the details, and as I understand it, contrary to SCC protocols, will only see it when the NPRM is produced.
It seems the proposed changes have been sent to selected members of AWAL.
In essence, aircraft that are ex-military, or are of a type used by a military force, even if the individual aircraft was never a military aircraft, will no longer be eligible for a certificate in the Experimental Exhibition category.
The only justification for this change, put forward at the recent AWAL AGM, was that owners putting their aircraft in Experimental Exhibition category were causing AWAL "revenue leakage" or words to that effect. Most of these aircraft are not eligible for a Limiter Cat. certificate, the proposed mechanisms to deal with that look like they have not really been thought through.
It is certainly not a regulatory change that has any air safety basis.
There has, apparently, been no consultation outside AWAL, and of particular concern to me is the fate of CAR 262AM.
262AM is for the protection of passengers, not for the benefit of aircraft owners and operator, and at best, seems to have been seriously watered down in the proposed CASR 132. 262AM has been referred to as an "an old regulation" by an officer of CASA recently, in public, it may date to 1998, but that is not "old" , and old is not the same as redundant.
Tootle pip!!
There is no current link, the SCC has not been advised of the details, and as I understand it, contrary to SCC protocols, will only see it when the NPRM is produced.
It seems the proposed changes have been sent to selected members of AWAL.
In essence, aircraft that are ex-military, or are of a type used by a military force, even if the individual aircraft was never a military aircraft, will no longer be eligible for a certificate in the Experimental Exhibition category.
The only justification for this change, put forward at the recent AWAL AGM, was that owners putting their aircraft in Experimental Exhibition category were causing AWAL "revenue leakage" or words to that effect. Most of these aircraft are not eligible for a Limiter Cat. certificate, the proposed mechanisms to deal with that look like they have not really been thought through.
It is certainly not a regulatory change that has any air safety basis.
There has, apparently, been no consultation outside AWAL, and of particular concern to me is the fate of CAR 262AM.
262AM is for the protection of passengers, not for the benefit of aircraft owners and operator, and at best, seems to have been seriously watered down in the proposed CASR 132. 262AM has been referred to as an "an old regulation" by an officer of CASA recently, in public, it may date to 1998, but that is not "old" , and old is not the same as redundant.
Tootle pip!!
Last edited by LeadSled; 18th Jan 2013 at 23:05.
Errrm, I might not be reading your response correctly, but where did you address the issue of “upgrading from experimental to limited”.
I’ll try a different tack.
Are you suggesting that if I own a Lancair in the Experimental category, an effect of the rumoured changes will be that I will have to join AWAL? If not, where is the increase in revenue for AWAL going to come from??
I’ll try a different tack.
Are you suggesting that if I own a Lancair in the Experimental category, an effect of the rumoured changes will be that I will have to join AWAL? If not, where is the increase in revenue for AWAL going to come from??
Last edited by Creampuff; 19th Jan 2013 at 01:11.
Creamie,
Not at all, it is "warbirds" that are to be denied an Experimental Certificate in the Exhibition category ---- quite how many of them will qualify for a Limited cert. is very unclear.
As was stated at the recent AGM, this is "to prevent leakage of revenue" for AWAL, nobody has even paid lip service to anything to do with aviation safety to justify the above.
Tootle pip
Not at all, it is "warbirds" that are to be denied an Experimental Certificate in the Exhibition category ---- quite how many of them will qualify for a Limited cert. is very unclear.
As was stated at the recent AGM, this is "to prevent leakage of revenue" for AWAL, nobody has even paid lip service to anything to do with aviation safety to justify the above.
Tootle pip
Last edited by LeadSled; 21st Jan 2013 at 02:33.
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Sydney NSW
Age: 76
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
safety first
LS
The CASA bloke at the AGM actually did try to put a safety case for their decision to cancel the experimental certificates, which raised more protests from the audience. It was the AWAL secretary who interjected with the bit about membership leakage. The CASA bloke didn't try to deny it, so I'm not sure where the finger points...?
The CASA bloke at the AGM actually did try to put a safety case for their decision to cancel the experimental certificates, which raised more protests from the audience. It was the AWAL secretary who interjected with the bit about membership leakage. The CASA bloke didn't try to deny it, so I'm not sure where the finger points...?
Blowie,
As I recall, said CASA chap also made some statement that "Experimental" was not intended as a permanent place for aircraft, but some kind of temporary state, until a certificate in some other category was issued ---- is it this, to which you refer.
I am not sure where this extraordinary idea has come from.
When these present rules went into place in 1998, what you have now is exactly what the Minister, the CASA Board (Mr. Justice William Fisher, Chairman) and the CEO of CASA, supported by the Program Advisory Panel of the CASA Review intended.
Experimental Exhibition was precisely the intended final category for a wide variety of aircraft, including many ex-military aircraft, whose main use, after restoration (or un-restored, for that matter) would be displays at airshows.
Tootle pip!!
As I recall, said CASA chap also made some statement that "Experimental" was not intended as a permanent place for aircraft, but some kind of temporary state, until a certificate in some other category was issued ---- is it this, to which you refer.
I am not sure where this extraordinary idea has come from.
When these present rules went into place in 1998, what you have now is exactly what the Minister, the CASA Board (Mr. Justice William Fisher, Chairman) and the CEO of CASA, supported by the Program Advisory Panel of the CASA Review intended.
Experimental Exhibition was precisely the intended final category for a wide variety of aircraft, including many ex-military aircraft, whose main use, after restoration (or un-restored, for that matter) would be displays at airshows.
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At a practice session for the traditional Australia day cricket match the Bar Room Barristers congregated at a shady, convivial watering hole to discuss "ways and means". As usually happens, matters aeronautical were discussed amongst them, the Warbirds dust up.
One of the crowd with a passing interest in AWAL told a tale, which floored everyone there. The yarn, as told is just a bit too recherché for relating on Pprune, but it has the distinct whiff of being just a little more than a dry dusty tale of corporate pushing and shoving.
It appears from the (long and eloquent) report "by T28", the Brisbane court hearing only scratches the surface of something which is potentially very ugly. Seems the Court and board are mulling over a right royal crock of pony pooh. Most of us thought AWAL was a happy, self managing outfit ticking over quietly. Not so apparently.
I notice Phelan withdrew his original piece; so we can assume there is 'paperwork' with unpleasant words flying about the place; but if someone could provide some background information without ending up hip deep in the mess – it would be much appreciated. Particularly by P7 who copped a fair pummelling after the tale was spun. There are some serious beers being bet here, so we await the umpires decision.
One of the crowd with a passing interest in AWAL told a tale, which floored everyone there. The yarn, as told is just a bit too recherché for relating on Pprune, but it has the distinct whiff of being just a little more than a dry dusty tale of corporate pushing and shoving.
It appears from the (long and eloquent) report "by T28", the Brisbane court hearing only scratches the surface of something which is potentially very ugly. Seems the Court and board are mulling over a right royal crock of pony pooh. Most of us thought AWAL was a happy, self managing outfit ticking over quietly. Not so apparently.
I notice Phelan withdrew his original piece; so we can assume there is 'paperwork' with unpleasant words flying about the place; but if someone could provide some background information without ending up hip deep in the mess – it would be much appreciated. Particularly by P7 who copped a fair pummelling after the tale was spun. There are some serious beers being bet here, so we await the umpires decision.
Last edited by Kharon; 23rd Jan 2013 at 18:14.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's such a pity when any organsiation ends up at odds with the Corporations Act 2001 because ASIC are usually only interested in harvesting the tall poppy's. It takes someone with the funds to bring things to a close with minimal damage to the organisation.
Usually as I have witnessed, it is better just to resign your position after you have been compromised and watch the place implode.
Usually as I have witnessed, it is better just to resign your position after you have been compromised and watch the place implode.
If the aviation sector in Australia was united, coordinated, coherent and competent at lobbying government, there might be a very slim chance of overcoming the sector's profound electoral handicap. However, much of it (other than a tiny number with deep pockets) is disunited, un-coordinated, incoherent and incompetent at lobbying government.
Last edited by Frank Arouet; 23rd Jan 2013 at 23:28.
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Sydney
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Leadsled and T28D, shouldn't you come clean about your motives for bagging Australian Warbirds Association with this rubbish?
I think both of you resigned from the AWAL Board "under clouds".
Time perhaps to forget the grudge and let the warbirders do their thing. A look at their accounts on their website indicates that they are going well.
I think both of you resigned from the AWAL Board "under clouds".
Time perhaps to forget the grudge and let the warbirders do their thing. A look at their accounts on their website indicates that they are going well.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 768
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah a new starter to Pprune well Mr Nononsense all will be revealed later today, AWAL was financial until the Judge awarded costs against them in the action that never should have occurred had the Secretary understood the AWAL obligations within the Corporations Law, thankfully the Judge did understand what was happening and ruled against AWAL on all 3 counts.
As the truth emerges re: Part 132 and the restrictions in it for all Warbird operators then we will see what the real game is.
And there are a significant body of so called "dissident" members who want change.
The reinstatement of parallel path would be a good starting position along with leaving the Regs as they are at present, Old aviation saying that holds true "If it ain't broke, don't fix it"
As the truth emerges re: Part 132 and the restrictions in it for all Warbird operators then we will see what the real game is.
And there are a significant body of so called "dissident" members who want change.
The reinstatement of parallel path would be a good starting position along with leaving the Regs as they are at present, Old aviation saying that holds true "If it ain't broke, don't fix it"
I think both of you resigned from the AWAL Board "under clouds".
How well self-named.
In short, re. the people you think you are referring to, the short answer is no. One resigned due severe health problems, the other didn't resign at all, just called it quits after something like 15 years on the AWAL board, simply declining to nominate for another term. There are, undoubtedly, times when enough is enough.
You would be well advised to check the facts, and not rely on some very erroneous and defamatory emails being circulated by partisan individuals, or the equally partisan phone campaign under way.
The coffers of AWAL are lighter by some $50,000+ give or take, as a result of non-compliance with the Corporations Act 2001,and due to the silliness that is going on.
Not a good result for the poor old members who have, so far as I can see, not even been told about the court case, right up to the Dispatch delivered in the last few hours, let alone what it has cost them.
It also looks like the company itself (AWAL is legally a public company) is campaigning in the lead-up to the resumed AGM, if this is so, this is also a serious breach of the Corporations Act 2001.
Time for a new board, with board members who actually understand about their legal responsibilities as directors of a public company.
Tootle pip!!
Last edited by LeadSled; 30th Jan 2013 at 02:55.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 768
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is areasoned evaluation of theproposed Part 132 that AWAL functionaries say will be better for all Warbird Owners, may I say read carefully and beware, this will cripple Australian Warbird operations as we know them today.
REVIEW OF PROPOSED CHANGES TO RULESGOVERNING LIMITED CATEGORY & EXPERIMENTAL AIRCRAFT – 23 January 2013; by Stephen Dines, CASA Authorised Person& AWAL AP
IMPORTANT NOTES
CASAhas proposed changes for the certification and management of limited category andexperimental aircraft. The proposedchanges are set out in a ‘Consultation Draft’.
This review isbased solely on the draft dated 11 September 2012, and cannot takeinto account any changes made to the draft since that version. Therefore, observations made in this review may no longer be appropriate if CASA hassince altered the proposal.
The‘Consultation Draft’ reviewed here was made available to certain AWAL membersby Stephen Crocker, CEO of AWAL. To theknowledge of the reviewer, the ‘Consultation Draft’ is still not availableoutside CASA and AWAL, and the CASA rep has said that it will not be madeavailable until it is ready to be released to the public through the NPRMprocess.
CONSULTATION DRAFT
74 pages
Dated 11 September 2012
Schedule 1 amends the
Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998.
Schedule 2 amends the
Civil Aviation Regulations 1988.
Includes
revisions to Parts 21 & 45
new Part 132
deletes CAR 42CB
deletes CAR 262AM
amends CAR 262AN
Introduction
Theproposed changes are complex and require many consequential amendments, so the‘Consultation Draft’ document is lengthy, convoluted and not easy to read. In this review I will attempt to outline someimportant ‘big picture’ elements of the proposal as well as discussing smallerelements of the proposed changes. I willnot discuss all the issues raised by this ‘Consultation Draft’ – there are toomany.
The‘Consultation Draft’ includes a great number of changes that are of a‘machinery’ nature and I will not comment on those at all.
Name changes and new definitions
Historic becomes Antique
Ex-military becomes Ex-armedforces
Ex-armed forces means:
an aircraft that has been manufactured in accordance with the requirements of, andaccepted for use by, an armed force of any country, but is no longer used, orhas never been used, by such a force.
Examples of armed forces
1 The army, navy or air force of a county.
2 A police force or service of a country.
3 A customs or border protection agency ofa country.
4 Another law enforcement agency of acountry.
registered operator has the meaninggiven by regulation 47.100.
operator is used frequentlybut no meaning is given to differentiate from registered operator
relevant approved organisation, for Limited,means AWAL
relevant person, for Limited,means AWAL or CASA
landingarea meansa place, whether or not an aerodrome, where an aircraft is able to take-off andland safely.
How safe operation is to be achieved
Byfar the most far-reaching change proposed, is in how safety is to be managedfor Limited category aircraft.
TheCASA proposal introduces a raft of new offences so that if a person doessomething wrong, an offence is committed for which a penalty is prescribed.(Most offences and therefore penalties are applied automatically, as offencesof ‘strict liability’.) Thus, the CASAapproach is to charge people with offences in the anticipation that this willproduce compliant behaviour, and in turn, deliver desirable safety outcomes.
Instark contrast, in the proposal that CASA agreed to in 2007, AWAL said that itwould devise policies for safe operation and enforce those policies by removingflight privileges for non-compliers, until compliance is demonstrated.
Asa result of this fundamental shift, and if AWAL agreed to remain the administratorof Limited category ops under the proposed new regs, then AWAL would primarilyact as a policing body, following policies devised by CASA and set solidly inregulation. In summary:
ORIGINAL
AWALdevises policies
AWALsets policies in Self-Admin Manual
Safetyby removing flying privileges of non-compliant aircraft
PROPOSED
CASAdetermines policies
CASAsets policies in regulation
Safetyby enforcement
Someideas contained in the draft are quite sensible and should be supported, butAWAL could support such ideas and monitor their effectiveness, by promoting andkeeping up-to-date, sound policies, rather than by putting those ideas intoregulation where they will be inflexible, and all but immovable.
Limited Manual
Amanual must be created for every Limited Category aircraft and individuallyapproved by AWAL. A copy of each Manualmust be provided to AWAL.
Eachaircraft must be operated in accordance with its Limited Manual. Failure to keep a Limited Manual up-to-dateis an offence, regardless of whether the aircraft flies or not.
It is also an offence if an operator failsto ensure that all personnel involved in adventure flights are provided withcopies of the Manual or its relevant parts.
personnel, means:
(a) an employee of the operator; and
(b) a person engaged by the operator toprovide services to the
operator; and
(c)an employee of a person mentioned in paragraph (b).
Cancellation of existing experimentalcertificates
Anotherfar-reaching CASA proposal is that ALLaircraft that can be described as ‘WARBIRDS’ should be certified in the Limited category, so that they can beadministered by AWAL. (An exception ismade for highly modified race planes.)
Toachieve this, draft reg 202.052B will cancelall existing experimental certificates that have been issued to warbirds in for example the ‘exhibition’ sub-category, on the dateof commencement of Part 132. Affectedaircraft will have to apply for a new Certificate of Airworthiness, and willhave to seek approval for any mods that are not part of the original typedesign.
Thepracticality of approving such mods is questionable and the expenseinevitable. For instance, here are someexamples of experimental warbirds that would find it difficult to re-certify inLimited category as proposed by CASA –
· Yak-52with a tail-wheel
· Kittyhawkwith the wrong engine and prop
· T-6modified to look like a Japanese fighter for the film “Tora Tora”
· Boomerangwith the wrong wings
· Nanchangwith a Yak engine
IfCASA prevails and those aircraft must operate under AWAL administration, thereis no need to re-certify them, when CAR262AN could be simply amended to embracethem. In fact, the ‘Consultation Draft’actually does amend CAR 262AN sothat AWAL can oversee certainexperimental aircraft, so it is clearly possible to add exhibition experimentalcertificates to this particular amendment if CASA wanted to. There is no reason proffered for a need tore-certify, nor consideration of the expense.
Provisionis made in the draft for AWAL to authorise an aeronautical engineer for thepurpose of approving mods to Limited aircraft, but there is no suggestion ofwhich mods would be acceptable or how such mods could become approved, norconsideration of the considerable risk that would be assumed by an aeronauticalengineer who chose to do so.
Cancellation of existing Limitedcertificates and permit index numbers
202.612 Special certificates ofairworthiness ceasing to be in
forceon [thedate of commencement of Part 132]
AnyCofA that was issued by someone otherthan CASA or AWAL (that is, by a CASA Authorised Person), will be cancelledon the date of commencement of Part 132, and a new CofA must be applied for.
202.613Permit indexes assigned by CASA or Australian Warbirds Association Ltd
AnyPermit Index that was assigned by someone otherthan CASA or AWAL (for example by a CASA Authorised Person), will becancelled on the date of commencement of Part 132, and a new one must beassigned.
Experimental aircraft maintenance
Alsounannounced and unexplained, is the intention to cancel CAR 42CB, which regapplies to ALL EXPERIMENTALAIRCRAFT.
Reg42CB was established at the commencement of the experimental rules, and directswhat the maintenance will be for an experimental aircraft. This reg was created because it was clearthat for the most part, experimental aircraft would not be able to comply withthe maintenance rules for normal aircraft. Reg 42CB should have been short lived – Part 43 was scheduled to closelyfollow it, and Part 43 contained a provision to exempt experimental aircraftfrom the normal maintenance rules – but after 15 years, that exemption hasstill not arrived to take the place of CAR 42CB.
WithoutCAR 42CB in place, or something like it, experimental aircraft of ALL typeswill be forced to obey maintenance rules which may simply be impossible. If CASA has considered this conflict anddesigned a replacement for 42CB, it is not readily apparent.
CASA head ofpower to define Limited uses and permit index
Thisregulation creates the power for CASA to modify, at any time, what uses a Limited aircraft may be put to,or how a Permit Index will apply, byissuing an Instrument.
21.004 Legislative instruments for Part 21
For paragraph 98 (5A) (a) of the Act, CASAmay issue
legislative instruments prescribing:
(a) operations that are special purposeoperations for limited
category aircraft for paragraph 21.189 (3)(i); or
(b) the requirements for the assignment ofa permit index
number to a limited category aircraft for
paragraph21.189C (2) (a).
Withthis power available, CASA can make whatever changes it sees as appropriatefrom time to time, without being hampered by the processes involved withchanging a regulation.
Thereis no reason apparent for this extraordinary approach and no safety outcome is suggested. There is no indication of what justificationCASA would need to trigger a modification to those provisions and consultationwould not be mandatory.
Offences shared around
Atseveral places in the ‘Consultation Draft’, offences are prescribed that applysimultaneously to both operator and pilot. Here is one example:
132.205 Flying limited categoryaircraft—flights over
populous areas
(1) The operator and the pilot incommand of a limited category
aircraft each commit an offence if:
(a) the aircraft is flown over a populousarea; and
(b)the flight is not permitted by this regulation.
A forced landing during an adventure flight createsan offence:
132.260 Carriage of passengers for hire orreward or on
publicly available flights—unbroken roundtrips only
(1) The operator of the aircraft commits anoffence if, for the
flight, the aircraft does not take-off fromand land at the same
landingarea (without landing anywhere else).
Thereare also offences created that apply to a booking agent if adventure passengersare not warned correctly at the point of sale.
Guardian must fly with pax
Would-beadventure passengers who are under 18 or mentally-impaired must be accompaniedon a flight by a parent or guardian. This will rule out the use of TWO-SEAT aircraft for such passengers.
Personal use officially okay
Amid the proposed changes is a provision that officially sanctions personaluse ofa limited category aircraft, as long as such a flight -
(a) is not publicly available; and
(b)no payment or reward is made or given to the aircraft’s registered operator,operator or flight crew.
Thedefinition of personal flight includes the personal transportation of theaircraft’s owner or operator or of a person to whom the aircraft is lent.
Itshould come as a relief to Limited owners to know that they will no longer riskprosecution for undertaking a personal flight in their warbird, and CASA is tobe applauded for taking this position.
Thedown-side for this public announcement is that, when they find out about it,manufacturers and distributors of certified aircraft may object, as happened inthe USA. Warbird ops in the US wereseverely constrained as a result.
Flight over a built-up area
Restrictionsregarding flight over a built-up area are tighter in the proposed new rules:
A limited category aircraft with a permitindex of 0 may be flown over a populous area.
A limited category aircraft with a permitindex of 1 may be flown over a populous area only in accordance with anapproval granted by AWAL or CASA.
A limited category aircraft with a permitindex of 2 may be flown over a populous area only in accordance with anapproval issued by CASA (only).
Alimited category aircraft with a permit index of 3 will not be permitted to flyover a built-up area at all.
Underthe original rules, there were more sensible provisions like this one in AC21.25(1), for an aircraft with apermit index of 1:
When the aircraftis transiting over a city or town, the aircraft must fly at a speed and heightwhich, in the event of an engine failure, will enable the aircraft to glide toa locality clear of the populous area.
CASAhas stated clearly that even an overflightat altitude would create an offence in the new rules, if an aircraft is notapproved for flight over the built-up area underneath it.
Shifting responsibilities
Currently,a Limited aircraft can operate in Australia, on the proviso that thirdparties are protected from it. Withthat direction from Government in mind, the original Limited rules wereconstructed with clear statements of responsibility and outcomes, like this:
From 21.189
Anapplicant is entitled to a special certificate of airworthiness for an aircraftin the limited category if the applicant gives CASA or an authorised person, informationreasonably needed by CASA or the authorised person to enable it to impose any conditions necessary in theinterests of the safety of other airspace users and persons on the ground orwater.
Theproposed regs however, contain several instances where AWAL or CASA or anAuthorised Aeronautical Engineer, for example, must take responsibility for thesafety of more than third parties:
Forexample, under the proposed 21.189C, whenAWAL issues a Limited CofA, AWAL must assign a permit index to the aircraft,only if AWAL “is satisfied” that the assignment of the number would not belikely to have an adverse effect on thesafety of air navigation.
Similarly, under 21.189D, CASA may vary a permitindex that was issued by AWAL if CASA is satisfied that it is necessary in the interests of aviation safety.
Anotherexample; when considering the issue of instruments for the control of Limitedops, 132.020 empowers CASA to take into account matters affecting the safe navigation and operation of ANAIRCRAFT to which Part 132 applies.
When the rules for Limited category andexperimental were composed, a separate NPRM produced the following reg:
201.003 Commonwealthand CASA not liable in certain cases
Neitherthe Commonwealth nor CASA is liable in negligence or otherwise for any loss ordamage incurred by anyone because of, or arising out of, the design,construction, restoration, repair, maintenance or operation of a limitedcategory aircraft or an experimental aircraft, or any act or omission of CASAdone or made in good faith in relation to any of those things.
CASR201.003 clearly indicates that CASAcannot be responsible for the safety of the aircraft itself.
Allthe above examples represent obviousconflicts with CASR 21.003, which in turn will impose unreasonableliability on persons who might be required to make decisions under thoseprovisions.
Thisshift away from Government’s directive as expressed in 201.003, will inevitablygenerate unexpected consequences as people apply their own ideas of how to dealwith phrases like “in the interest of aviation safety”. This change presents a very real threat tothe continued viability of Limited operations.
Unnecessary duplication
Inthe ‘Consultation Draft’ there is a “new” experimental purpose created. That “new” purpose is -
21.191(ba) for an ex-armed forces aircraft—for determining whether the aircraft hasacceptable handling characteristics;
Thischange is superfluous as a provision already exists under 21.191 (b) –
AC21.5(0) 10.FLIGHT TESTING At the completionof restoration, a limited category aircraft will be required to undergo a testflight prior to the issue of a limited category CoA. A limited durationexperimental certificate issued in accordance with CASR 21.191(b) will be required...
New limit for POB
Fora Limited aircraft to be flown with more than 6 persons on board, an approvalis required. However, under the proposedchanges, the number of persons for which the approval is given must not be more than the number of personsthe aircraft was designed to carry.
Sofor large aircraft like bombers, that have had seats added for pax, it lookslike those seats will have to come out – if these proposals go ahead.
REVIEW OF PROPOSED CHANGES TO RULESGOVERNING LIMITED CATEGORY & EXPERIMENTAL AIRCRAFT – 23 January 2013; by Stephen Dines, CASA Authorised Person& AWAL AP
IMPORTANT NOTES
CASAhas proposed changes for the certification and management of limited category andexperimental aircraft. The proposedchanges are set out in a ‘Consultation Draft’.
This review isbased solely on the draft dated 11 September 2012, and cannot takeinto account any changes made to the draft since that version. Therefore, observations made in this review may no longer be appropriate if CASA hassince altered the proposal.
The‘Consultation Draft’ reviewed here was made available to certain AWAL membersby Stephen Crocker, CEO of AWAL. To theknowledge of the reviewer, the ‘Consultation Draft’ is still not availableoutside CASA and AWAL, and the CASA rep has said that it will not be madeavailable until it is ready to be released to the public through the NPRMprocess.
CONSULTATION DRAFT
74 pages
Dated 11 September 2012
Schedule 1 amends the
Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998.
Schedule 2 amends the
Civil Aviation Regulations 1988.
Includes
revisions to Parts 21 & 45
new Part 132
deletes CAR 42CB
deletes CAR 262AM
amends CAR 262AN
Introduction
Theproposed changes are complex and require many consequential amendments, so the‘Consultation Draft’ document is lengthy, convoluted and not easy to read. In this review I will attempt to outline someimportant ‘big picture’ elements of the proposal as well as discussing smallerelements of the proposed changes. I willnot discuss all the issues raised by this ‘Consultation Draft’ – there are toomany.
The‘Consultation Draft’ includes a great number of changes that are of a‘machinery’ nature and I will not comment on those at all.
Name changes and new definitions
Historic becomes Antique
Ex-military becomes Ex-armedforces
Ex-armed forces means:
an aircraft that has been manufactured in accordance with the requirements of, andaccepted for use by, an armed force of any country, but is no longer used, orhas never been used, by such a force.
Examples of armed forces
1 The army, navy or air force of a county.
2 A police force or service of a country.
3 A customs or border protection agency ofa country.
4 Another law enforcement agency of acountry.
registered operator has the meaninggiven by regulation 47.100.
operator is used frequentlybut no meaning is given to differentiate from registered operator
relevant approved organisation, for Limited,means AWAL
relevant person, for Limited,means AWAL or CASA
landingarea meansa place, whether or not an aerodrome, where an aircraft is able to take-off andland safely.
How safe operation is to be achieved
Byfar the most far-reaching change proposed, is in how safety is to be managedfor Limited category aircraft.
TheCASA proposal introduces a raft of new offences so that if a person doessomething wrong, an offence is committed for which a penalty is prescribed.(Most offences and therefore penalties are applied automatically, as offencesof ‘strict liability’.) Thus, the CASAapproach is to charge people with offences in the anticipation that this willproduce compliant behaviour, and in turn, deliver desirable safety outcomes.
Instark contrast, in the proposal that CASA agreed to in 2007, AWAL said that itwould devise policies for safe operation and enforce those policies by removingflight privileges for non-compliers, until compliance is demonstrated.
Asa result of this fundamental shift, and if AWAL agreed to remain the administratorof Limited category ops under the proposed new regs, then AWAL would primarilyact as a policing body, following policies devised by CASA and set solidly inregulation. In summary:
ORIGINAL
AWALdevises policies
AWALsets policies in Self-Admin Manual
Safetyby removing flying privileges of non-compliant aircraft
PROPOSED
CASAdetermines policies
CASAsets policies in regulation
Safetyby enforcement
Someideas contained in the draft are quite sensible and should be supported, butAWAL could support such ideas and monitor their effectiveness, by promoting andkeeping up-to-date, sound policies, rather than by putting those ideas intoregulation where they will be inflexible, and all but immovable.
Limited Manual
Amanual must be created for every Limited Category aircraft and individuallyapproved by AWAL. A copy of each Manualmust be provided to AWAL.
Eachaircraft must be operated in accordance with its Limited Manual. Failure to keep a Limited Manual up-to-dateis an offence, regardless of whether the aircraft flies or not.
It is also an offence if an operator failsto ensure that all personnel involved in adventure flights are provided withcopies of the Manual or its relevant parts.
personnel, means:
(a) an employee of the operator; and
(b) a person engaged by the operator toprovide services to the
operator; and
(c)an employee of a person mentioned in paragraph (b).
Cancellation of existing experimentalcertificates
Anotherfar-reaching CASA proposal is that ALLaircraft that can be described as ‘WARBIRDS’ should be certified in the Limited category, so that they can beadministered by AWAL. (An exception ismade for highly modified race planes.)
Toachieve this, draft reg 202.052B will cancelall existing experimental certificates that have been issued to warbirds in for example the ‘exhibition’ sub-category, on the dateof commencement of Part 132. Affectedaircraft will have to apply for a new Certificate of Airworthiness, and willhave to seek approval for any mods that are not part of the original typedesign.
Thepracticality of approving such mods is questionable and the expenseinevitable. For instance, here are someexamples of experimental warbirds that would find it difficult to re-certify inLimited category as proposed by CASA –
· Yak-52with a tail-wheel
· Kittyhawkwith the wrong engine and prop
· T-6modified to look like a Japanese fighter for the film “Tora Tora”
· Boomerangwith the wrong wings
· Nanchangwith a Yak engine
IfCASA prevails and those aircraft must operate under AWAL administration, thereis no need to re-certify them, when CAR262AN could be simply amended to embracethem. In fact, the ‘Consultation Draft’actually does amend CAR 262AN sothat AWAL can oversee certainexperimental aircraft, so it is clearly possible to add exhibition experimentalcertificates to this particular amendment if CASA wanted to. There is no reason proffered for a need tore-certify, nor consideration of the expense.
Provisionis made in the draft for AWAL to authorise an aeronautical engineer for thepurpose of approving mods to Limited aircraft, but there is no suggestion ofwhich mods would be acceptable or how such mods could become approved, norconsideration of the considerable risk that would be assumed by an aeronauticalengineer who chose to do so.
Cancellation of existing Limitedcertificates and permit index numbers
202.612 Special certificates ofairworthiness ceasing to be in
forceon [thedate of commencement of Part 132]
AnyCofA that was issued by someone otherthan CASA or AWAL (that is, by a CASA Authorised Person), will be cancelledon the date of commencement of Part 132, and a new CofA must be applied for.
202.613Permit indexes assigned by CASA or Australian Warbirds Association Ltd
AnyPermit Index that was assigned by someone otherthan CASA or AWAL (for example by a CASA Authorised Person), will becancelled on the date of commencement of Part 132, and a new one must beassigned.
Experimental aircraft maintenance
Alsounannounced and unexplained, is the intention to cancel CAR 42CB, which regapplies to ALL EXPERIMENTALAIRCRAFT.
Reg42CB was established at the commencement of the experimental rules, and directswhat the maintenance will be for an experimental aircraft. This reg was created because it was clearthat for the most part, experimental aircraft would not be able to comply withthe maintenance rules for normal aircraft. Reg 42CB should have been short lived – Part 43 was scheduled to closelyfollow it, and Part 43 contained a provision to exempt experimental aircraftfrom the normal maintenance rules – but after 15 years, that exemption hasstill not arrived to take the place of CAR 42CB.
WithoutCAR 42CB in place, or something like it, experimental aircraft of ALL typeswill be forced to obey maintenance rules which may simply be impossible. If CASA has considered this conflict anddesigned a replacement for 42CB, it is not readily apparent.
CASA head ofpower to define Limited uses and permit index
Thisregulation creates the power for CASA to modify, at any time, what uses a Limited aircraft may be put to,or how a Permit Index will apply, byissuing an Instrument.
21.004 Legislative instruments for Part 21
For paragraph 98 (5A) (a) of the Act, CASAmay issue
legislative instruments prescribing:
(a) operations that are special purposeoperations for limited
category aircraft for paragraph 21.189 (3)(i); or
(b) the requirements for the assignment ofa permit index
number to a limited category aircraft for
paragraph21.189C (2) (a).
Withthis power available, CASA can make whatever changes it sees as appropriatefrom time to time, without being hampered by the processes involved withchanging a regulation.
Thereis no reason apparent for this extraordinary approach and no safety outcome is suggested. There is no indication of what justificationCASA would need to trigger a modification to those provisions and consultationwould not be mandatory.
Offences shared around
Atseveral places in the ‘Consultation Draft’, offences are prescribed that applysimultaneously to both operator and pilot. Here is one example:
132.205 Flying limited categoryaircraft—flights over
populous areas
(1) The operator and the pilot incommand of a limited category
aircraft each commit an offence if:
(a) the aircraft is flown over a populousarea; and
(b)the flight is not permitted by this regulation.
A forced landing during an adventure flight createsan offence:
132.260 Carriage of passengers for hire orreward or on
publicly available flights—unbroken roundtrips only
(1) The operator of the aircraft commits anoffence if, for the
flight, the aircraft does not take-off fromand land at the same
landingarea (without landing anywhere else).
Thereare also offences created that apply to a booking agent if adventure passengersare not warned correctly at the point of sale.
Guardian must fly with pax
Would-beadventure passengers who are under 18 or mentally-impaired must be accompaniedon a flight by a parent or guardian. This will rule out the use of TWO-SEAT aircraft for such passengers.
Personal use officially okay
Amid the proposed changes is a provision that officially sanctions personaluse ofa limited category aircraft, as long as such a flight -
(a) is not publicly available; and
(b)no payment or reward is made or given to the aircraft’s registered operator,operator or flight crew.
Thedefinition of personal flight includes the personal transportation of theaircraft’s owner or operator or of a person to whom the aircraft is lent.
Itshould come as a relief to Limited owners to know that they will no longer riskprosecution for undertaking a personal flight in their warbird, and CASA is tobe applauded for taking this position.
Thedown-side for this public announcement is that, when they find out about it,manufacturers and distributors of certified aircraft may object, as happened inthe USA. Warbird ops in the US wereseverely constrained as a result.
Flight over a built-up area
Restrictionsregarding flight over a built-up area are tighter in the proposed new rules:
A limited category aircraft with a permitindex of 0 may be flown over a populous area.
A limited category aircraft with a permitindex of 1 may be flown over a populous area only in accordance with anapproval granted by AWAL or CASA.
A limited category aircraft with a permitindex of 2 may be flown over a populous area only in accordance with anapproval issued by CASA (only).
Alimited category aircraft with a permit index of 3 will not be permitted to flyover a built-up area at all.
Underthe original rules, there were more sensible provisions like this one in AC21.25(1), for an aircraft with apermit index of 1:
When the aircraftis transiting over a city or town, the aircraft must fly at a speed and heightwhich, in the event of an engine failure, will enable the aircraft to glide toa locality clear of the populous area.
CASAhas stated clearly that even an overflightat altitude would create an offence in the new rules, if an aircraft is notapproved for flight over the built-up area underneath it.
Shifting responsibilities
Currently,a Limited aircraft can operate in Australia, on the proviso that thirdparties are protected from it. Withthat direction from Government in mind, the original Limited rules wereconstructed with clear statements of responsibility and outcomes, like this:
From 21.189
Anapplicant is entitled to a special certificate of airworthiness for an aircraftin the limited category if the applicant gives CASA or an authorised person, informationreasonably needed by CASA or the authorised person to enable it to impose any conditions necessary in theinterests of the safety of other airspace users and persons on the ground orwater.
Theproposed regs however, contain several instances where AWAL or CASA or anAuthorised Aeronautical Engineer, for example, must take responsibility for thesafety of more than third parties:
Forexample, under the proposed 21.189C, whenAWAL issues a Limited CofA, AWAL must assign a permit index to the aircraft,only if AWAL “is satisfied” that the assignment of the number would not belikely to have an adverse effect on thesafety of air navigation.
Similarly, under 21.189D, CASA may vary a permitindex that was issued by AWAL if CASA is satisfied that it is necessary in the interests of aviation safety.
Anotherexample; when considering the issue of instruments for the control of Limitedops, 132.020 empowers CASA to take into account matters affecting the safe navigation and operation of ANAIRCRAFT to which Part 132 applies.
When the rules for Limited category andexperimental were composed, a separate NPRM produced the following reg:
201.003 Commonwealthand CASA not liable in certain cases
Neitherthe Commonwealth nor CASA is liable in negligence or otherwise for any loss ordamage incurred by anyone because of, or arising out of, the design,construction, restoration, repair, maintenance or operation of a limitedcategory aircraft or an experimental aircraft, or any act or omission of CASAdone or made in good faith in relation to any of those things.
CASR201.003 clearly indicates that CASAcannot be responsible for the safety of the aircraft itself.
Allthe above examples represent obviousconflicts with CASR 21.003, which in turn will impose unreasonableliability on persons who might be required to make decisions under thoseprovisions.
Thisshift away from Government’s directive as expressed in 201.003, will inevitablygenerate unexpected consequences as people apply their own ideas of how to dealwith phrases like “in the interest of aviation safety”. This change presents a very real threat tothe continued viability of Limited operations.
Unnecessary duplication
Inthe ‘Consultation Draft’ there is a “new” experimental purpose created. That “new” purpose is -
21.191(ba) for an ex-armed forces aircraft—for determining whether the aircraft hasacceptable handling characteristics;
Thischange is superfluous as a provision already exists under 21.191 (b) –
AC21.5(0) 10.FLIGHT TESTING At the completionof restoration, a limited category aircraft will be required to undergo a testflight prior to the issue of a limited category CoA. A limited durationexperimental certificate issued in accordance with CASR 21.191(b) will be required...
New limit for POB
Fora Limited aircraft to be flown with more than 6 persons on board, an approvalis required. However, under the proposedchanges, the number of persons for which the approval is given must not be more than the number of personsthe aircraft was designed to carry.
Sofor large aircraft like bombers, that have had seats added for pax, it lookslike those seats will have to come out – if these proposals go ahead.