CAR 232...an Ausfly experience coming to you?
To prove this situation-
Do a google search of any exemption you can think of. This will go to the AusLi site as the first or second hit. Open the link and check the details in the box in the upper right corner.
For argument sake. EX05/09 This exemption has an expiry date of 2011. Look at the top right corner, it shows there the activity of the reg. Rescinded under the blanket instrument.
Methinks these FOIs are being too clever by half. Regretfully, how far do you have to go to prove these people do not know their job?
I'll keep at this for a bit longer to ensure my position.
EDIT to add...any exemption you open on the AusLi site will show on the left side of heading whether it is CURRENT, SUPERSCEDED or RESCINDED.
Do a google search of any exemption you can think of. This will go to the AusLi site as the first or second hit. Open the link and check the details in the box in the upper right corner.
For argument sake. EX05/09 This exemption has an expiry date of 2011. Look at the top right corner, it shows there the activity of the reg. Rescinded under the blanket instrument.
Methinks these FOIs are being too clever by half. Regretfully, how far do you have to go to prove these people do not know their job?
I'll keep at this for a bit longer to ensure my position.
EDIT to add...any exemption you open on the AusLi site will show on the left side of heading whether it is CURRENT, SUPERSCEDED or RESCINDED.
Last edited by OZBUSDRIVER; 30th Aug 2015 at 22:59.
The only authoritative register is the Federal Register of Legislative Instruments. That ain't Austlii and it ain't the AOCM.
If you can't find the exemption on FRLI (or hidden somewhere in the regs), it isn't law.
The fact that there was a general exemption and reference in the AOCM to private operations shows that CASA considers 232 to apply generally. Why else would an exemption be required?
If you can't find the exemption on FRLI (or hidden somewhere in the regs), it isn't law.
The fact that there was a general exemption and reference in the AOCM to private operations shows that CASA considers 232 to apply generally. Why else would an exemption be required?
Check Attitude
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Queensland, Australia
Posts: 476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
with regards to "Operator"
Duckpilot gave the clue, CAR 212 defines operator as the entity engaged in COMMERCIAL operations.
private owners engaged in private (non-commercial) operations are not the target of CAR 232.
relax and enjoy the show
Duckpilot gave the clue, CAR 212 defines operator as the entity engaged in COMMERCIAL operations.
private owners engaged in private (non-commercial) operations are not the target of CAR 232.
relax and enjoy the show
Lead Balloon...It IS there on the site....Do you want it written in blood, signed by the Director himself?
Further to your point-
If there are FOIs running around with their own interpretations then best do something about it with the DAS at NRM. Copy of this thread, copy of exemption and any hearsay evidence that you may have of these two FOIs persecuting on their own interpretation of the law.
I hate unswarn officers who do not know their job...not as much as BS spreaders on this site!
Further to your point-
Some (other) instruments of exemption are classified as legislative instruments, meaning they are routinely published on ComLaw in authoritative form. If an instrument of exemption is not on ComLaw, it may be available in the gazette or on request.
I hate unswarn officers who do not know their job...not as much as BS spreaders on this site!
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"hence their newfound interest in going after private owners (operators) for non-compliance with CAR 232,"
Or could it be more about revenue raising?
I know of one operator who was charged 16 hours@$190 an hour for an FOI to check the manufacturer supplied, FAA approved QRH, exactly matched the Manufacturer supplied, FAA approved AFM.
The big problems occur when the procedure lists contained in the AFM built on 1970'ies philosophy and product liability are considered as checklists, leading to pages and pages of entirely dicretionary stuff like Air Conditioning.............AS REQUIRED,
without stating the obvious, if its bleeding hot turn it on, if it aint leave it off. This leads to forty fifty item taxi checklists with both pilots head in instead of head out which if anyone did a risk analysis it would perhaps indicate that this is not a real good idea as someone might happen to taxi into someone else, or worse enter a runway while an A380 is taking off because they are too busy checking stuff that has nothing to do with the safe operation of the aircraft.
In the end its all about liability, they really should take safety out of CAsA's title.
Or could it be more about revenue raising?
I know of one operator who was charged 16 hours@$190 an hour for an FOI to check the manufacturer supplied, FAA approved QRH, exactly matched the Manufacturer supplied, FAA approved AFM.
The big problems occur when the procedure lists contained in the AFM built on 1970'ies philosophy and product liability are considered as checklists, leading to pages and pages of entirely dicretionary stuff like Air Conditioning.............AS REQUIRED,
without stating the obvious, if its bleeding hot turn it on, if it aint leave it off. This leads to forty fifty item taxi checklists with both pilots head in instead of head out which if anyone did a risk analysis it would perhaps indicate that this is not a real good idea as someone might happen to taxi into someone else, or worse enter a runway while an A380 is taking off because they are too busy checking stuff that has nothing to do with the safe operation of the aircraft.
In the end its all about liability, they really should take safety out of CAsA's title.
Last edited by thorn bird; 30th Aug 2015 at 23:31.
If in doubt...RING FLIGHT OPERATIONS and ask them...I just did, the exemption is current and in force. If the FOI in question ramps you on this...Name and ID.
Have a nice weekend, people. Bloody BS abounds...Leadsled, you should know better!
Have a nice weekend, people. Bloody BS abounds...Leadsled, you should know better!
Mainframe
CAR 212 starts with the magic words "in this Division":
"In this Division, operator means an operator engaging in commercial operations."
CAR 212 is in Divison 2. "This Division" is Division 2.
CAR 232 is in Division 3.
OZ: Please post the FRLI link to the exemption to which you refer. Some FOI saying it is so does not make it so.
And don't forget:
- CASA's published guidance on ramp checks for "GA pilots" says that you will be expected to provide paper or electronic copies of checklists,
- the reference in the guidance is to CAR 232, and
- CAR 232 requires the checklists to have come from a CASA-approved system.
CAR 212 starts with the magic words "in this Division":
"In this Division, operator means an operator engaging in commercial operations."
CAR 212 is in Divison 2. "This Division" is Division 2.
CAR 232 is in Division 3.
OZ: Please post the FRLI link to the exemption to which you refer. Some FOI saying it is so does not make it so.
And don't forget:
- CASA's published guidance on ramp checks for "GA pilots" says that you will be expected to provide paper or electronic copies of checklists,
- the reference in the guidance is to CAR 232, and
- CAR 232 requires the checklists to have come from a CASA-approved system.
Where does it say GA PVT don't have to?
You must understand where this confusion originated. It originated from CASA guidance and the mess that is the regulations. It did not originate from anyone on pprune.
You must understand where this confusion originated. It originated from CASA guidance and the mess that is the regulations. It did not originate from anyone on pprune.
My information is direct from the Melbourne office of Flight Operations. This BS needs to stop! Ring them yourself! Bookmark the ComLaw site, download the PDF into your phone and have a hard copy, if you can, placed in the front of your Flight Manual.
GA PVT under 5700KG is exempt from CAR232 under EX38/2004!
GA PVT under 5700KG is exempt from CAR232 under EX38/2004!
So hopefully, if that exemption is still in force, someone in CASA will amend the CASA guidance on ramp checks so as to not cause further confusion.
Let's hope that, if it is in force, it isn't inadvertantly revoked.
And if the policy of the exemption is a good idea, one wonders why it could not have been enshrined in the regulations by now, more than a decade later.
"Beyond a point, complexity is fraud."
Let's hope that, if it is in force, it isn't inadvertantly revoked.
And if the policy of the exemption is a good idea, one wonders why it could not have been enshrined in the regulations by now, more than a decade later.
"Beyond a point, complexity is fraud."
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Victoria
Posts: 750
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My information is direct from the Melbourne office of Flight Operations. This BS needs to stop! Ring them yourself! Bookmark the ComLaw site, download the PDF into your phone and have a hard copy, if you can, placed in the front of your Flight Manual.
GA PVT under 5700KG is exempt from CAR232 under EX38/2004!
GA PVT under 5700KG is exempt from CAR232 under EX38/2004!
Why is the CAR written in the negative instead of imposing a positive obligation? Why doesn't it use plain English? Why didn't it deal with the situation for aircraft under 5700 kg instead of another exemption of doubtful currency? What makes CASA a more learned authority than the worlds biggest manufacturer of GA SE aircraft or a small one for that matter? Why has all sense and reason flown out the window?
The answer is surely in the management, or lack thereof, commencing with successive Ministers and a long list of Directors whose experiences in the real world are limited or forgotten.
Write to your Members folks and keep telling them "no more!"
<first name.last [email protected]>
Kaz
Yep.
This issue is one example, out of many, that illustrates so vividly the pointless complexity of and confusion caused by the regulatory regime and the spectrum of learned helplessness across to outright rejection of the industry.
First there's the bunch of people who figure that CAR 232 doesn't apply to private ops. Ironically, they stumble into inadvertent compliance (actually, they inadvertently avoid non-compliance and criminality) because of an exemption that is over a decade old, if it is still in force. If it isn't in force, or is revoked, presumably this bunch of people will continue to operate safely, notwithstanding that they are in breach of CAR 232.
Then there's whoever drafted the guidance on ramp checks, who did not know about, or decided it wasn't worth mentioning, the existence of a general exemption from CAR 232, and instead stated categorically that GA pilots would be expected to provide evidence of written or electronic checklists, with a reference to CAR 232 and, by implication, all the requirements of CAR 232. (So what if people read CASA guidance as meaning what it says? That's their problem!) The alternative is that whoever drafted the guidance on ramp checks believes that the exemption is no longer in force.
But let's be thankful to our benign regulator if there is an exemption in force that exempts private ops generally from compliance with CAR 232. And let's be thankful to our benign regulator for choosing, each day, not to revoke the exemption.
And let's hope that at some point in their busy days and somewhere on their list of priorities for regulatory reform over the next few decades, our benign regulator can manage to arrange for an amendment to the regulations so that the exemption isn't required in the first place.
I reckon we should have a whip around the industry to raise a couple of million or so, to fund the insertion of a couple of words into CAR 232. A big, stressful job for CASA, I know. But with enough time and money and the industry's support, CASA just might be able to arrange it.
"Beyond a point, complexity is fraud."
This issue is one example, out of many, that illustrates so vividly the pointless complexity of and confusion caused by the regulatory regime and the spectrum of learned helplessness across to outright rejection of the industry.
First there's the bunch of people who figure that CAR 232 doesn't apply to private ops. Ironically, they stumble into inadvertent compliance (actually, they inadvertently avoid non-compliance and criminality) because of an exemption that is over a decade old, if it is still in force. If it isn't in force, or is revoked, presumably this bunch of people will continue to operate safely, notwithstanding that they are in breach of CAR 232.
Then there's whoever drafted the guidance on ramp checks, who did not know about, or decided it wasn't worth mentioning, the existence of a general exemption from CAR 232, and instead stated categorically that GA pilots would be expected to provide evidence of written or electronic checklists, with a reference to CAR 232 and, by implication, all the requirements of CAR 232. (So what if people read CASA guidance as meaning what it says? That's their problem!) The alternative is that whoever drafted the guidance on ramp checks believes that the exemption is no longer in force.
But let's be thankful to our benign regulator if there is an exemption in force that exempts private ops generally from compliance with CAR 232. And let's be thankful to our benign regulator for choosing, each day, not to revoke the exemption.
And let's hope that at some point in their busy days and somewhere on their list of priorities for regulatory reform over the next few decades, our benign regulator can manage to arrange for an amendment to the regulations so that the exemption isn't required in the first place.
I reckon we should have a whip around the industry to raise a couple of million or so, to fund the insertion of a couple of words into CAR 232. A big, stressful job for CASA, I know. But with enough time and money and the industry's support, CASA just might be able to arrange it.
"Beyond a point, complexity is fraud."
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
CAsA have emphatically refused to entertain any amendments to any regulations that mirror the FAA stated "foster or encourage or promote" and by doing so they affirm the industry vote of no confidence, (as stated in The Forsyth Review), by them doing the exact opposite.
It could be this matter is intentional if not incompetent. They can't have it both ways.
It could be this matter is intentional if not incompetent. They can't have it both ways.
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Qld
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EX38/2004
I followed my nose using a Google Search and eventually ended up here -https://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2005B00505
which very clearly shows this exemption as being Current.
Cheers,
ORH
which very clearly shows this exemption as being Current.
Cheers,
ORH
Folks,
I think we have established that EX 38/2004 is still current, but, curiously, you will not find it going the ComLaw via the CASA web site that ostensibly has links to all such matters.
However, this still leaves the matter of the "footnote" on the bottom of 38/2004, which almost negates the rest of the exemption, especially if you are an FOI with evil intent.
So, what I don't know is whether some smarty in CASA thought the 38/2004 was extinguished, or whether they thought they were going to hang their hat on the "footnote".
Either way, there has been enough on the subject of CAR 232, including direct representation to CASA to ensure the "top floor" is aware, and to hope that there will be no interference with Ausfly.
I certainly hope so, after what was done to Natfly.
Tootle pip!!
PS: This is yet another prime example of how difficult it is to know what "the aviation law" actually is, in Australia.
Recently, an AOC application was knocked back by CASA. As part of the preparation, the "applicant" went back through five (5) years of AsA HO NOTAMS. It transpired that the knock-back was because there were HO NOTAMS even older, "the applicant" was "deemed" to not have complied with CASA AOC application conditions.
I think we have established that EX 38/2004 is still current, but, curiously, you will not find it going the ComLaw via the CASA web site that ostensibly has links to all such matters.
However, this still leaves the matter of the "footnote" on the bottom of 38/2004, which almost negates the rest of the exemption, especially if you are an FOI with evil intent.
So, what I don't know is whether some smarty in CASA thought the 38/2004 was extinguished, or whether they thought they were going to hang their hat on the "footnote".
Either way, there has been enough on the subject of CAR 232, including direct representation to CASA to ensure the "top floor" is aware, and to hope that there will be no interference with Ausfly.
I certainly hope so, after what was done to Natfly.
Tootle pip!!
PS: This is yet another prime example of how difficult it is to know what "the aviation law" actually is, in Australia.
Recently, an AOC application was knocked back by CASA. As part of the preparation, the "applicant" went back through five (5) years of AsA HO NOTAMS. It transpired that the knock-back was because there were HO NOTAMS even older, "the applicant" was "deemed" to not have complied with CASA AOC application conditions.
An apology from a scaremonger
Having looked at all the posts and relevant materials, I realise that I should apologise for my scaremongering.
As anyone with any experience in the aviation regulatory regime in Australia knows, any guidance produced by CASA is almost invariably inaccurate and misleading.
I should have realised that CASA's guidance on ramp checks does not mean what it says. Despite the heading and content, CASA won't be asking GA PVT pilots for paper or electronic checklists from a check system approved by CASA. The CASA inspectors will know, just by looking, or will accept the pilot's assertion, that the operation is PVT, and will know about an exemption that's not mentioned in the guidance.
I should have realised that the answer to what the requirements are can almost never be answered by looking at the rules: the exemptions are the main regulatory game in Australia.
I should be thankful that the lawfulness of my PVT operations depends on an exemption, granted and revoked at the whim of the regulator.
I should have realised that all the rhetoric about outcomes-based regulations under which exemptions will not be required is just that: empty rhetoric. I should have realised that 28 years is nowhere near enough time to incorporate changes into CAR 232 - which was in the original 1988 regulations - to negate the need for yet another exemption and to make the narrow application of the check system requirements clear on the face of the rules.
Most importantly, I should have realised that almost almost everybody is so confused by the complexity that they just do their best to operate safely, and don't need more distraction and confusion from scaremongers pointing at the five different provisions and documents that you have to read to work out to whom CAR 232 applies and what CASA hopefully intended to say in its guidance.
And as anyone with any experience knows, the guidance will quietly be changed, without any version reference or record, and all of this will never have happened.
My apologies. Now, back to Stockholm and my well-learnt helplessness.
As anyone with any experience in the aviation regulatory regime in Australia knows, any guidance produced by CASA is almost invariably inaccurate and misleading.
I should have realised that CASA's guidance on ramp checks does not mean what it says. Despite the heading and content, CASA won't be asking GA PVT pilots for paper or electronic checklists from a check system approved by CASA. The CASA inspectors will know, just by looking, or will accept the pilot's assertion, that the operation is PVT, and will know about an exemption that's not mentioned in the guidance.
I should have realised that the answer to what the requirements are can almost never be answered by looking at the rules: the exemptions are the main regulatory game in Australia.
I should be thankful that the lawfulness of my PVT operations depends on an exemption, granted and revoked at the whim of the regulator.
I should have realised that all the rhetoric about outcomes-based regulations under which exemptions will not be required is just that: empty rhetoric. I should have realised that 28 years is nowhere near enough time to incorporate changes into CAR 232 - which was in the original 1988 regulations - to negate the need for yet another exemption and to make the narrow application of the check system requirements clear on the face of the rules.
Most importantly, I should have realised that almost almost everybody is so confused by the complexity that they just do their best to operate safely, and don't need more distraction and confusion from scaremongers pointing at the five different provisions and documents that you have to read to work out to whom CAR 232 applies and what CASA hopefully intended to say in its guidance.
And as anyone with any experience knows, the guidance will quietly be changed, without any version reference or record, and all of this will never have happened.
My apologies. Now, back to Stockholm and my well-learnt helplessness.
Last edited by Lead Balloon; 1st Sep 2015 at 00:34.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Victoria
Posts: 750
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Note that the exemption, if still in force, only applies to sub regs (2) and (5) so you must have a comprehensive checklist and use it...no memory stuff...use the checklist.
When the noise stops at 500'...get the checklist out and use it or cop a fine.
And be careful of that tricky wording in Schedule 2...
Kaz
When the noise stops at 500'...get the checklist out and use it or cop a fine.
And be careful of that tricky wording in Schedule 2...
Kaz