4Dogs
I’m sure you weren’t taught anything by me, but instead by someone who appears to know what they’re talking about.
This is solid gold and I could not have said it better myself:
[T]he AIP has no force of its own, as it exists only to publish general guidance information (considered to be advice only) and properly made statutory instruments (which in their original form have the force of law by virtue of the head of power under which they are made)
Two things, at least, follow from that statement.
First, if something in the AIP reflects a properly made statutory instrument (like a direction under reg 240 quoted earlier), failure to comply with that direction is a breach of reg 239 (quoted earlier),
because the direction is published in AIP in accordance with reg 240. That’s the second of your alternatives.
The answer to your question:
What is the penalty for not complying with a provision of the AIP, as distinct from any relevant statutory instruments?
is therefore that there is no ‘stand alone’ penalty for not complying with “AIP”.
The point I was trying to make earlier in this thread is this: Just because AIP has no “stand alone” force and therefore sundry bright sparks can’t purport to make whatever rules they want by merely putting the text in AIP, it does not follow that the bright idea can
never be given legal effect.
There are lots of valid directions that are accurately published in AIP, as a consequence of which the world is on notice of those directions, as a further consequence of which breach = offence.
Further, there are lots of other valid directions that
could be made and published in AIP.
A question for you: does CASA have the power to issue a direction requiring pilots to divert to an alternative, in a set of circumstances specified by CASA?