Originally Posted by
Mach E Avelli
Leadsled I have seen an occasional comment that there are NZ rules that we would not want to copy, and would be interested to know which rules, and why.
A genuine question.
Having worked under both CASA and NZCAA, I found NZ generally clearer and easier to comply with overall, even though they were more strict in some areas.
It seems that some want to cherry pick rules from all over, i.e. a bit of FAA, a bit of Canada, a bit of NZ etc. That would be Utopia, which as we know does not exist.
Mac E,
If give the either/or choice, I would go with the NZ Act and Regulations over any other I know,( a choice quite a long list of countries have made, with their own minor local changes) but given a choice there are a few things I would not adopt. This based on quite a lot of experience with the NZ rules, particularly establishing new AOCs.
As well as the above, the couple that come to mind are:
1) In NZ, no "Group" endorsements, as we have had here in only recent years, given the choice here, follow FAA. Second choice, what we already have.
2) Our Part 21 Experimental and Limited rules, before CASA completely screwed it up, including but not limited to perverting of Experimental Exhibition and Air Racing and forcing these aircraft into "Limited", and the hands of AWAL.
3) Re. Airspace, revert to our original Airspace Act 2007, which incorporated mandatory real risk analysis and cost/benefit justification.
They are the major ones, to my mind.
As to Utopia, in the CASA Review in 1997, we had a big spreadsheet, with the "equivalent" regulations from relevant countries plus ICAO set out side by side (which really illustrated how voluminous and out of balance Australian regulations were/are) with the policy of "pick the simplest and least restrictive that does the job", it can be done if you want to do it.
The draft Part 91/135/121 and Part 43/145 we left in 1999 were, in our opinion, even more simple and straightforward than the NZ equivalent ---- and in total contrasts to the present shambles.
Sadly, the CASA penchant is for the most restrictive, with the current perverted "interpretation" of S.9A of our Act, effectively saying it mandates zero accident and "100% Safety" ---- which S.9A
does not say. Add the overriding policy of writing the rules for 100% conviction rate, and you have our disaster --- and a severe impact across the board, NOT JUST GA, it is costing airlines big time.
Tootle pip!!