Regulatory Reform? Not A Hope In Hell!
This explains everything: Conservative Comedy with Political Satirist PJ O'Rourke - FORA.tv
It may be funny, but it is deadly accurate.
It may be funny, but it is deadly accurate.
Aviation regulatory shambles in Australia
Given the discussion on these threads, I was reading through the large number of CASA Instruments and Rulings and came across CASA Instrument 102/15 relating to the Jabiru aircraft. In part there is a statement that must be signed by intending passengers (assuming the pilot does actually tell the passenger) as follows:
‘I ACCEPT THE RISK OF BEING INJURED OR KILLED IN THE EVENT OF AN ENGINE MALFUNCTION DURING FLIGHT, NOTING THAT:
‘(A) THE AIRCRAFT MUST BE FLOWN AWAY FROM PEOPLE ON THE GROUND (AND BUILDINGS), EVEN IF THAT MEANS AN EMERGENCY LANDING AT A LOCATION THAT IS LESS SAFE FOR THAT PURPOSE; AND
‘(B) THE SAFETY OF AN EMERGENCY LANDING CANNOT BE GUARANTEED EVEN IF THERE IS A SUITABLE LANDING LOCATION.
‘I NOTE CASA’S ADVICE THAT I SHOULD NOT FLY IN THE AIRCRAFT IF I AM NOT PREPARED TO ACCEPT THE HEIGHTENED RISK INVOLVED.
‘I ACCEPT THE RISK NOTING THAT THE ENGINE MANUFACTURER IS WORKING TO IDENTIFY AND FIX THE ENGINE ISSUES AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.
‘I AM AWARE THAT CASA REQUIRES MY SIGNATURE ON THIS STATEMENT BEFORE THE FLIGHT MAY COMMENCE.
This aircraft is allowed to fly in the same airspace as ourselves and I wonder what the Australian Public at large would think of this "protection" from their aviation "safety" authority? Why do we bother with Airworthiness Standards if approvals for aircraft operations have come to this? I do not accept the caveat that the aircraft must be flown away from built up areas? Does that mean its OK for it to crash on my farm? I really think it is time to hand my wings in. This is a legislative nightmare!
‘I ACCEPT THE RISK OF BEING INJURED OR KILLED IN THE EVENT OF AN ENGINE MALFUNCTION DURING FLIGHT, NOTING THAT:
‘(A) THE AIRCRAFT MUST BE FLOWN AWAY FROM PEOPLE ON THE GROUND (AND BUILDINGS), EVEN IF THAT MEANS AN EMERGENCY LANDING AT A LOCATION THAT IS LESS SAFE FOR THAT PURPOSE; AND
‘(B) THE SAFETY OF AN EMERGENCY LANDING CANNOT BE GUARANTEED EVEN IF THERE IS A SUITABLE LANDING LOCATION.
‘I NOTE CASA’S ADVICE THAT I SHOULD NOT FLY IN THE AIRCRAFT IF I AM NOT PREPARED TO ACCEPT THE HEIGHTENED RISK INVOLVED.
‘I ACCEPT THE RISK NOTING THAT THE ENGINE MANUFACTURER IS WORKING TO IDENTIFY AND FIX THE ENGINE ISSUES AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.
‘I AM AWARE THAT CASA REQUIRES MY SIGNATURE ON THIS STATEMENT BEFORE THE FLIGHT MAY COMMENCE.
This aircraft is allowed to fly in the same airspace as ourselves and I wonder what the Australian Public at large would think of this "protection" from their aviation "safety" authority? Why do we bother with Airworthiness Standards if approvals for aircraft operations have come to this? I do not accept the caveat that the aircraft must be flown away from built up areas? Does that mean its OK for it to crash on my farm? I really think it is time to hand my wings in. This is a legislative nightmare!
Let me guess: You want "the government" to "ban it"?
What are the probabilities of the events about which you are concerned? What are the probabilities of being killed crossing the street?
What are the probabilities of the events about which you are concerned? What are the probabilities of being killed crossing the street?
There is a simple rule here, a rule of legislation, a rule of business, a rule of life: beyond a certain point complexity is fraud.
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Toowoomba
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The question to ask of Skidmore is this "If your organisation was out to destroy private aviation in Australia, what would it be doing differently?"
As for the NZ rules, I have recently had cause to look up some of them. While clearly and concisely written you must remember NZ is the home of the world's most anal, nit picking bureacrats. Take a look at some of the forms they have "permission to use an EFB" Yes, even for Part 91 private ops. "Test pilot approval for amateur built" Yes, you need their permission to test fly your own homebuilt.
There's no such thing as a class rating for tricycle single piston land day VFR. You need a type rating for each type. Oh, and an extensive list of charges for everything.
Screw the NZ rules.
As for the NZ rules, I have recently had cause to look up some of them. While clearly and concisely written you must remember NZ is the home of the world's most anal, nit picking bureacrats. Take a look at some of the forms they have "permission to use an EFB" Yes, even for Part 91 private ops. "Test pilot approval for amateur built" Yes, you need their permission to test fly your own homebuilt.
There's no such thing as a class rating for tricycle single piston land day VFR. You need a type rating for each type. Oh, and an extensive list of charges for everything.
Screw the NZ rules.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Home
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gcafinal, this is for Jabiru ENGINES, not jabiru aircraft
Theres plenty of debate as to this action and its hope of achieving anything
It applied equally to experimental types and homebuilts. Owners can take out Jab engine and fit homemade engine or some rare auto conversion and not come under limitations any more
Theres plenty of debate as to this action and its hope of achieving anything
It applied equally to experimental types and homebuilts. Owners can take out Jab engine and fit homemade engine or some rare auto conversion and not come under limitations any more
