There is, in my opinion, no need to “lift” safety standards.
There is, in my opinion, a chronic need to:
- interpret the existing safety standards consistently, and
- secure compliance with the existing safety standards, consistently and effectively.
Creamie,
That much, I agree with!! The answer to not enforcing existing laws is not more law ---- to also remain largely unenforced.
You have consistently made the point, in other threads over the years, the "the laws" are made by Parliament ---- quite correct, of course.
That CASA knowingly permits commercial passenger carrying operations to be carried out in circumstances for which an AOC is required (e.g. parachute operations in which punters off the street pay to be carried in aircraft) is a scandal.
No, CASA doesn't, and you know the law in the area at least just as well, if not better than I do.
If you or anybody else doesn't like the laws as enacted by Parliament, lobby for change.
That CASA knowingly permits commercial flying training operations to be carried out in circumstances for which an AOC is required (e.g. RAA Aus charging money to train its members) is a scandal.
No, CASA doesn't, and you know the law in the area at least just as well, if not better than I do.
If you or anybody else doesn't like the laws as enacted by Parliament, lobby for change.
CASA has no power to exempt anyone from the requirement for an AOC authorising operations for which an AOC is required. CASA’s job is to enforce the requirement, not turn a blind eye to it.
Now, here is an interesting point.
The AOC requirements were elevated to the Act largely as a result of several of the political backwash of several high profile Regional fatal crashes.
Many, me included, would say that the AOC amendments were very badly done, but done they were, covering a far wider range than the pollies originally. How do I know? You, for one, know.
Most of us are well aware of moves, over many years, to wind back some AOC requirements, to enable (as one example, there are others) one man flying training operations, as the FAA (and other counties) allow. The standards control is effective flight testing, as it used to be.
The demise of flying training in so many small country centers, is in large part due to the onerous AOC requirements, that have little to do with effective flying training --- onerous requirements that are financially unsustainable in micro businesses.
The very interesting point, argued yes by your former boss, was whether CASA had the power to give exemptions from provisions of the Act, by virtue of a regulation that made provision for exemptions. That is, can a regulation be used to create an exemption to it's enabling Act.
As a legal layman, my view, argued at the time, was that the answer was no, and the Act needed amendment, if that was to be the case. Your former boss successfully argued otherwise, and we have quite a few examples of what, on the face of it, are CASA using a regulation to create a provision that is, effectively, an exemption from a provision of the Act.
Organisations which take money to carry passengers in aircraft are carrying passengers for money in aircraft, whether or not those passengers happen to jump out of the aircraft and be members of a ‘club’ or a ‘federation’.
Organisations which take money to train pilots are taking money to train pilots, whether or not those trainees happen to be members of a ‘club’ or an ‘association’.
SuperD,
You are clearly suffering from "hire and reward" syndrome, that hasn't ever been in the "modern" Civil Aviation Act 1988, have a careful read of CAR 206, or anywhere else in the Act, where 'hire and reward" is the primary determinant for the regulations to be applied. Treatment is available, it is called application of suitable quantities of (self) education.
If you don't like the situation, including Supreme Court decisions that have, effectively, validated the arrangements, and including specific provisions of the Competition and Consume Act 2010, carried over from the Trade Practices Act 1974, authorizing waiver of liability in certain circumstances --- generically "extreme sports", where the risks cannot( effectively) be mitigated , take it up with the Minister ---- this is a rare case of bipartisan agreement between the major political parties.
It's a free world, those who want to extend the nanny state, go your hardest, you will have plenty of opposition.
Tootle pip!!