Part 61 - Some Interesting Numbers
Thread Starter
Part 61 - Some Interesting Numbers
As a retiree with clearly not enough domestic chores, I have been delving into what's in Part 61. Please correct mu 'numbers' if you like:
Size
NZ Part 61 - 110 pages plus some AC's that act as standards
US FAA Part 61 - 187 pages and I couldn't find any 'standards' published (maybe they rightly expect instructors to know how to train to the FAA's published standards?)
CASR Part 61 - 661 pages at last count, ( and that doesn't include the ridiculous number of instruments developed to plug the gaps). Then add in 664 pages in the Manual of Standards - (although I think that it's probably more than this?)
Language
The NZ Part 61 is written in clear, understandable English. The US Part 61 is a little more legalistic - but still understandable.
The CASA Part 61 has been written in full blown 'legalese' - perhaps intending to block any loopholes that criminal pilots and their defence might exploit.
Weight of Paper
My Part 61 licence in it's CASA folder, measures 165mm x 115mm x 18mm, and weighs 186g
My RAAus Certificate is a standard credit card size, measures 85 mm x 54mm x 1mm and weighs 6g
My old US PPL card weighs just 2 g and is credit card size.
Penalties
CASR Part 61 contains 39 specified offences, each an offence of strict liability, and attracting a penalty of 50 points - probably at $50 per point. It is illuminating to learn that 4 of these offences relate to pilot logbooks.
US and NZ Part 61s - couldn't see any penalties?
After 53 years of flying GA/RAAus in Australia, I'm gaining the impression that our regulator is far and away more successful than those Kiwis and Yanks. http://www.pprune.org/forums/images/...n_rolleyes.gif
Size
NZ Part 61 - 110 pages plus some AC's that act as standards
US FAA Part 61 - 187 pages and I couldn't find any 'standards' published (maybe they rightly expect instructors to know how to train to the FAA's published standards?)
CASR Part 61 - 661 pages at last count, ( and that doesn't include the ridiculous number of instruments developed to plug the gaps). Then add in 664 pages in the Manual of Standards - (although I think that it's probably more than this?)
Language
The NZ Part 61 is written in clear, understandable English. The US Part 61 is a little more legalistic - but still understandable.
The CASA Part 61 has been written in full blown 'legalese' - perhaps intending to block any loopholes that criminal pilots and their defence might exploit.
Weight of Paper
My Part 61 licence in it's CASA folder, measures 165mm x 115mm x 18mm, and weighs 186g
My RAAus Certificate is a standard credit card size, measures 85 mm x 54mm x 1mm and weighs 6g
My old US PPL card weighs just 2 g and is credit card size.
Penalties
CASR Part 61 contains 39 specified offences, each an offence of strict liability, and attracting a penalty of 50 points - probably at $50 per point. It is illuminating to learn that 4 of these offences relate to pilot logbooks.
US and NZ Part 61s - couldn't see any penalties?
After 53 years of flying GA/RAAus in Australia, I'm gaining the impression that our regulator is far and away more successful than those Kiwis and Yanks. http://www.pprune.org/forums/images/...n_rolleyes.gif
The missing part of your analysis is the comparison of the accident and incident rates.
It may be that as a consequence of all those extra pages of regulations and all those repititions of offences, Australia has a lower rate of accidents and incidents than the comparator jurisdictions.
Or not.
It may be that as a consequence of all those extra pages of regulations and all those repititions of offences, Australia has a lower rate of accidents and incidents than the comparator jurisdictions.
Or not.
Those regs
And then go through all those additional requirements we have over those countries. Actually try and work out how many of our additional pages actually do anything at all to contribute to Safety or not? Maybe we have so many extra pages because of the failure to achieve "clear and concise aviation safety standards" in breech of the requirement in 1c of the Act, or not?
As yet, nobody from the regulator has been able to identify to me how or where my personal safety or that of my passengers safety has been improved, increased, enhanced or in anyway changed from what it was pre Part 61 to now what it is post Part 61 implementation.
So why did we do it?
Not interested in the harmonisation or compliance excuses, only interested in the safety aspect. It is after all called a Civil Aviation SAFETY Regulation Part 61.
CC
So why did we do it?
Not interested in the harmonisation or compliance excuses, only interested in the safety aspect. It is after all called a Civil Aviation SAFETY Regulation Part 61.
CC
Perhaps, if you have the time, you could extract some individual regulations and paste the three countries' versions so we can compare them, inclusive of our verbose legalese.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Victoria
Posts: 750
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Penalties
CASR Part 61 contains 39 specified offences, each an offence of strict liability, and attracting a penalty of 50 points - probably at $50 per point. It is illuminating to learn that 4 of these offences relate to pilot logbooks
CASR Part 61 contains 39 specified offences, each an offence of strict liability, and attracting a penalty of 50 points - probably at $50 per point. It is illuminating to learn that 4 of these offences relate to pilot logbooks
Kaz
$180 actually.
Until the automatic indexation provisions kick in ...
Until the automatic indexation provisions kick in ...
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Actually try and work out how many of our additional pages actually do anything at all to contribute to Safety or not?
You are clearly not with the game my friend. It is all about safety, 100% about safely covering the CASA legal departments arse. And farkall to do with the safety of yours or your passengers.
poteroo
This thread should be printed and posted/emailed to Mr Skidmore.
Why not compare how many pilots/aircraft/CASA staff in 1976, 1996 and 2016? I get the distinct impression that the ratio of CASA (and predecessors) staff per aircraft in this country has about doubled.............but I don't feel twice as safe.
Or not.
Tootle pip!!
PS 1:FAA Airman Certification Standards, --- have just replaced the Practical Test Standards, literally in the last few weeks. Really only a bureaucratic name change.
PS2: FAR penalties are there, all listed in a separate FAR --- more to the point, pro rata to AU, FAA prosecutions and even administrative penalties are rare, compared to here.
Although I never personally checked the figures, it was claimed, several years ago, that in the subject year of the study, there were more enforcement actions with some form of penalty in Australia, than in US, despite roughly ten times as many pilots in US.
Last edited by LeadSled; 29th Jun 2016 at 14:34.
Here you go. Someone's already been hard at it!
http://amroba.org.au/wp-content/uplo...sue-5-0516.pdf
Aussie Part 61 in 134 pages. Who would have thought.
http://amroba.org.au/wp-content/uplo...SS-Part-61.pdf
CASA, where are you?
http://amroba.org.au/wp-content/uplo...sue-5-0516.pdf
Aussie Part 61 in 134 pages. Who would have thought.
http://amroba.org.au/wp-content/uplo...SS-Part-61.pdf
CASA, where are you?
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: australia
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I posted this previously:
"For my sins, I have obtained AOCs for various entities from Malta, the Bahamas, the USA, the UK, HKG, China, NZ and Oz; that is what I do.
I can tell you one thing, Oz may have convoluted regulations but they are not unique amongst regulators in that respect.
For a Chinese company I looked at an Oz AOC as they were that way 'inclined'. So, I checked the newly released (at the time) Part 61.
If you compare the Oz reg 61, single paragraph per page as opposed to, say, the FAA where they use smaller font than Oz and use two columns per page, a word count will show you (different numbers for PDF versus WORD), that the Oz Part 61 compared to the CFAR Part 61 and the 'Special' CFAR Part 61 are within plus or minus 5%.
NZ has more words than both.
Both the FAA and NZ have seperate 'offence' regulations that I have not added into the word counts.
So, CASA needs to get itself righted but they are light years ahead of many other nations and ICAO recognises that."
"For my sins, I have obtained AOCs for various entities from Malta, the Bahamas, the USA, the UK, HKG, China, NZ and Oz; that is what I do.
I can tell you one thing, Oz may have convoluted regulations but they are not unique amongst regulators in that respect.
For a Chinese company I looked at an Oz AOC as they were that way 'inclined'. So, I checked the newly released (at the time) Part 61.
If you compare the Oz reg 61, single paragraph per page as opposed to, say, the FAA where they use smaller font than Oz and use two columns per page, a word count will show you (different numbers for PDF versus WORD), that the Oz Part 61 compared to the CFAR Part 61 and the 'Special' CFAR Part 61 are within plus or minus 5%.
NZ has more words than both.
Both the FAA and NZ have seperate 'offence' regulations that I have not added into the word counts.
So, CASA needs to get itself righted but they are light years ahead of many other nations and ICAO recognises that."
The word count isn't, in fact, within 5%.
Another key difference is that the industry in the USA in fact understands what FAR 61 means.
In any event, Checklist Charlie nailed it: There was, in fact, no air safety problem to which Australia's new Part 61 is a solution.
Another key difference is that the industry in the USA in fact understands what FAR 61 means.
In any event, Checklist Charlie nailed it: There was, in fact, no air safety problem to which Australia's new Part 61 is a solution.
Last edited by Lead Balloon; 30th Jun 2016 at 22:57. Reason: Edited to take account of Ixixly's valid point made in #17
If someone is happy to collate some more statistics including aircraft movements, numbers in each category and accident/fatality numbers across etc I'm happy to create some infographics and post them on a website. They do say a picture is worth a thousand words.
@Dick Smith, here's you chance to come to the party and backup all your statements with some hard facts.
@Dick Smith, here's you chance to come to the party and backup all your statements with some hard facts.
Not entirely true Lead Balloon, the safety of a few peoples jobs in CASA were likely at risk, it's difficult to remain employed when you've got nothing to do, so why not dream up some new threats and fix them?
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"So, CASA needs to get itself righted but they are light years ahead of many other nations and ICAO recognises that."
From your CV, outlined in your post Actus, there can be little doubt you are an expert in aviation regulation as no doubt is Arm out the window.
Perhaps the CAsA DAS is right when he claims half the world is beating a path to his door to adopt Australia's light years ahead regulations, though there seems very little evidence that anyone is actually doing it.
I am just a pilot, albeit a rather old and decrepit one, but I have a fair amount of experience piloting around the world. From my personal experiences only, I have never had much problem understanding the intent and requirements of other jurisdictions regulations. Maybe I'm just an uneducated dumbass but I have enormous difficulty, as much as I try, in trying to interpret what exactly the OZ version of Part 61 is intended to achieve.
Anecdotally, from other dumbasses I've talked to around the industry, including many CAsA FOI's if they are honest, there seems to me to be the similar problems of comprehension with quite a few people about the place.
Again purely from my own experience, and anecdotally from others, there would appear to be rather large cost burdens attached to compliance. For me about a third of my income has evaporated as the cost of compliance is unsustainable, purely on a cost/return basis.
The thing I find hard to fathom is, is this the intention of part 61 or is it to provide a framework for improved safety? From my experience, as a "framework", Australia's part 61 is very extensive and prescriptive.
Again purely from personal experience, micro-management can lead to unintended consequences, especially when embedded in criminal law. It’s difficult, especially in aviation, to micro-manage events where the environments they occur in are infinitely variable from behind a desk in Canberra.
There are bits and pieces contained in the MOS where to comply, in certain aircraft, would place the aircraft in jeopardy, not I suggest an intended consequence.
There was a recent TV program on the biggest accident in aviation history at Tenerife, where it was suggested a contributing factor was one crews actions may have been accredited to their concerns about breaching a prescriptive regulation regarding duty time.
An unintended consequence?
One could surmise a lot of people lost their lives through an unintended consequence.
I am aware of several instances here in Australia where fear of retribution has lead to what appears to me to be poor operational decisions that could have compromised safety, but then I'm not an expert, I just fly aircraft.
Your advice that ICAO is very happy with the way Australia is conducting its regulatory affairs is heartening news, especially viewed against the myriad differences Australia has posted against ICAO recommendations and the observations of an ICAO audit.
Time will tell I guess. I don’t think the full financial impact of Part 61 is yet apparent.
However from anecdotal evidence, as the industry continues to decline helped along by Part 61, safety statistics will improve as less and less aviating occurs, safety after all is the intended consequence.
From your CV, outlined in your post Actus, there can be little doubt you are an expert in aviation regulation as no doubt is Arm out the window.
Perhaps the CAsA DAS is right when he claims half the world is beating a path to his door to adopt Australia's light years ahead regulations, though there seems very little evidence that anyone is actually doing it.
I am just a pilot, albeit a rather old and decrepit one, but I have a fair amount of experience piloting around the world. From my personal experiences only, I have never had much problem understanding the intent and requirements of other jurisdictions regulations. Maybe I'm just an uneducated dumbass but I have enormous difficulty, as much as I try, in trying to interpret what exactly the OZ version of Part 61 is intended to achieve.
Anecdotally, from other dumbasses I've talked to around the industry, including many CAsA FOI's if they are honest, there seems to me to be the similar problems of comprehension with quite a few people about the place.
Again purely from my own experience, and anecdotally from others, there would appear to be rather large cost burdens attached to compliance. For me about a third of my income has evaporated as the cost of compliance is unsustainable, purely on a cost/return basis.
The thing I find hard to fathom is, is this the intention of part 61 or is it to provide a framework for improved safety? From my experience, as a "framework", Australia's part 61 is very extensive and prescriptive.
Again purely from personal experience, micro-management can lead to unintended consequences, especially when embedded in criminal law. It’s difficult, especially in aviation, to micro-manage events where the environments they occur in are infinitely variable from behind a desk in Canberra.
There are bits and pieces contained in the MOS where to comply, in certain aircraft, would place the aircraft in jeopardy, not I suggest an intended consequence.
There was a recent TV program on the biggest accident in aviation history at Tenerife, where it was suggested a contributing factor was one crews actions may have been accredited to their concerns about breaching a prescriptive regulation regarding duty time.
An unintended consequence?
One could surmise a lot of people lost their lives through an unintended consequence.
I am aware of several instances here in Australia where fear of retribution has lead to what appears to me to be poor operational decisions that could have compromised safety, but then I'm not an expert, I just fly aircraft.
Your advice that ICAO is very happy with the way Australia is conducting its regulatory affairs is heartening news, especially viewed against the myriad differences Australia has posted against ICAO recommendations and the observations of an ICAO audit.
Time will tell I guess. I don’t think the full financial impact of Part 61 is yet apparent.
However from anecdotal evidence, as the industry continues to decline helped along by Part 61, safety statistics will improve as less and less aviating occurs, safety after all is the intended consequence.
CFAR Part 61 and the 'Special' CFAR Part 61 are within plus or minus 5%
The word count isn't, in fact, within 5%.
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: australia
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ARM,
You are quite right, I was waiting for the font of all knowledge to decry me.
mcgrath,
Yes, if Lead Balloon said it, it automatically is correct. Well, not in this case.
As for the NZ and offences, the applicable document is the 'Civil Aviation (Offences) Regulations 2006'.
Civil Aviation (Offences) Regulations 2006 (SR 2006/168) (as at 15 April 2016) Schedule 1 Offence provisions and penalties ? New Zealand Legislation
While you look at this lengthy document, please note the financial size of the penalties.
You are quite right, I was waiting for the font of all knowledge to decry me.
mcgrath,
Yes, if Lead Balloon said it, it automatically is correct. Well, not in this case.
As for the NZ and offences, the applicable document is the 'Civil Aviation (Offences) Regulations 2006'.
Civil Aviation (Offences) Regulations 2006 (SR 2006/168) (as at 15 April 2016) Schedule 1 Offence provisions and penalties ? New Zealand Legislation
While you look at this lengthy document, please note the financial size of the penalties.