Partly what CC said...
You bozos better ... stick to **** you understand. Its not immediately apparent what that might be - its certainly not flying aircraft.
Take a look at 91.455 for some more of the lunacy, in particular:
(2) A crew member of an aircraft commits an offence if:
(a) he or she provides an alcoholic beverage to a passenger on board the aircraft; and
(b) at the time of the provision, the passenger is affected by alcohol or another psychoactive substance to an extent that his or her behaviour presents a hazard to the aircraft or to a person on board the aircraft.
Some major problems here I think.
Firstly, a crew member...is this a cabin crew member, as per 91.455(1)(b), or any crew member?
Secondly, where is the objective criteria to define what behaviour presents such a hazard, what exactly is meant by by psychoactive substance, because those substances aren't defined in the proposed consultation draft (ie., illicit or non-illicit psychoactive substances)?
Now look at 91.460:
The operator, or a crew member, of an aircraft may prohibit a person from boarding the aircraft if there are reasonable grounds to believe that the person is affected by alcohol or a drug to an extent that may present a hazard to the aircraft or to a person on board the aircraft.
In this instance crew member seems to include flight and cabin crew...fair enough. But now CASA refers to a person affected by alcohol or a drug. So, what happened to psychoactive substances here at 91.460??
For chrissakes CASA, after all this time you
STILL managed to unnecessarily overcomplicate this CASR when it could simply have been a carbon copy of the NZ Part, and in the process made some monumental fcuk-ups in the process!
I'd suggest the Director CASA pulls his head out of his @rse, reads and understands the posts on this thread, then gets busy and organises a big arse-kicking party for the clowns who drafted this nonsense.
Idiocy like the CASR proposed should be a strict liability offence I reckon.
