By the way, would a Tiger Moth fall under the definition of "Warbirds"?
Sunfish,
In a Question on Notice some time ago, about the number of "Warbirds" in Australia ( presumably CASA supplied the information to the Minister), the answer did include Tigers and a whole range of Standard Cat. C.of A aircraft, that started off as military aircraft, which really raises the further question of "understanding" or "corporate memory" in CASA.
This is one area where I can't really blame the military retirees in CASA.
Part 132 goes back to project OS 03/04, and a certain former Executive Manager Standards, who declared, at an SCC meeting:
"The government made a mistake in 1998, we are going to fix it".
Some reading these posts will be aware of the "Great Friday Afternoon Revolt" (CASA's equivalent of "The Great Tea Trolly Disaster of 1986, of Bristow fame), how the revolt was "put down" by Byron, and who was the first to depart.
At the time, there was a considerable obsession within a segment of CASA to narrow down "private flying" to the use of an aircraft by its owner and carrying only the owner's immediate family. There is an element of this in the private use limitation of Part 132.
All other private operations were to be subject to a "private operations AOC", with all the trappings of an AOC. This was micro-management by CASA gone mad.
The "Approve Operations Manual" of Part 132 is this AOC in all but name, the end result is the same.
Part of this obsession also survives in a sub-section of Part 92, involving private corporate operations, regardless of the complete lack of a demonstrated safety risk, to which the proposed rule is the answer.
Interestingly, the only fatal jet transport accident in Australia was operating on an AOC, the Mareeba Citation ---- so much for regulations being the answer.
The FAA records are somewhat similar, most of the losses of corporate aircraft have been Part 135 operations.
Is this a general "tightening up", yes, I think there is an element of that. For amateur builders, we are slowly moving back to the limitations of CAO 101.28, and LAMEs doing most of the maintenance. The frog in slowly boiling water analogy.
Something like Part 132 takes on a life of its own. Originally, there were four sub-parts of Part 132, as a result of lobbying, only the Warbirds section remains.
The great pity of all this is that the very narrow gains of of the "Warbirds Package" could be achieved without the changes to Part 21 and Part 132, with its micro-management and range of draconian penalties.
Who was it said:
"Paranoia is the price of freedom, vigilance is not nearly enough".
Tootle pip!!