PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - Part 135 amendments
View Single Post
Old 7th Aug 2018, 07:25
  #7 (permalink)  
LeadSled
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,955
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by Lead Balloon
Then ‘ban’ everything but RPT.

That would certainly simplify the classification of operations scheme and make aviation ‘safer’.
Lead Balloon,
You and I both know a former senior CASA executive, a former Assistant Director, no less, who wanted to do exactly that, decreeing that the minimum standard for "commercial passenger operations" (or some combination of words to that effect) for ALL aircraft would be the same as applied to RPT, claiming this was required by the Seaview Royal Commission.

For (approximately) anything over 5700 kg, and some other aircraft, that is pretty much what is in Part 135, with "concessions" for aircraft under 5700 kg. not making much difference.

Among many things, I am quite taken (in a legal liability versus practicality) by the definition of forced landing areas. 135.025.

As expected, the field is wide open for each and every FOI to push their pet wheelbarrows via "the exposition", if anything it is worse than the present situation.

Tootle pip!!
LeadSled is offline