Merged: CASA Regulatory Reform

[Up-into-the-air]

casa enlgrish please!!

I thought I recognised them as well!!!

The "usual suspects" EH!!

[Up-into-the-air]

casa enlgrish please!!

Here is another, but look at the apparent [if you can understand the english] kick in the tail:

Project SS 13/04
CASR Part 117 - Representations and surveys Issue

Creation 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??

[my oleo is extended]

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'.

[halfmanhalfbiscuit]

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?

[Volumex]

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")

[Arm out the window]

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!

[Up-into-the-air]

casa engrish please!!!

Here's the latest on the update at post # UITA Project: SS 13/04

http://casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/ma...sr-part117.pdf

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??

(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!!

[aroa]

Coercive powers...

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.

[thorn bird]

Aroa cant understand why you have your knickers in a knot???
Everything is "Fine" in Australia......
There's a fine for everything!!!!

[my oleo is extended]

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'........

"Aviation, what aviation?"

[Up-into-the-air]

casa engrish please!!!

Here is the latest - Someone, please explain this to me.

28 March 2013
Civil Aviation Order 48.1 Instrument 2013

PART 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

[Up-into-the-air]

casa engrish please!!!

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:

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.

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.

[Up-into-the-air]

casa engrish please!!!

Well, here's an admission that casa got it wrong, in the current DAS emission:

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.

Not bad for a $250m plus regulation re-write!!

[thorn bird]

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!!

[Up-into-the-air]

casa and the future - responsibility for their actions

Here we go again thornbird, just another little "fix"

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.

Rules affected

CASR PART 42

[kabukiman]

I larfed.

Very good

[thorn bird]

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

[Up-into-the-air]

casa - Engrish please

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. CATEGORY A TRAINING AND AUTHORISATION

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!!!

[Up-into-the-air]

casa just do not get it!!!!!!!!!

Here we go with another classic:

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.

read it here:

Civil Aviation Safety Authority - Project MS 13/11

[601]

Wasn't it a bird that chased it own tail until it disappeared up it own @$$