Slight thread drift...but it is the weekend and parts of that Hansard are pure gold!
On page 97-98 of the Hansard Senator Williams initiates a line of questioning in regards to PEDs and obviously he is angling for a response from FF in regards to the AG’s indiscretion on the 23rd of April. What followed though was quite interesting:
Mr McCormick: I am sorry, I will correct that. We do have a freedom of information request. My information commissioner can tell you that.
Senator WILLIAMS: I believe Ms Smith-Roberts said that there was no requirement for Qantas to report a potential safety breach of this type to CASA—is that correct—when someone does not turn their phone off or their electrical item?
Hmm…well a quick check of the 'FOI disclosure log' it would appear FF has yet to publish that request...guess we'll be seeing it real soon now!
However then the questioning goes to r309A and the proposed regulation of PEDs:
Mr McCormick: The normal manner would be that they would report it to their airline. The crew would report it to the airline and the airline would write to us. That is the normal method. I am unaware of whether any flight attendants have written to us directly.
Senator FAWCETT: Mr McCormick, can you confirm that under reg 309A it is actually a strict liability offence to disregard instructions of a crew member?
Mr McCormick: I will take that on notice. I do not have the regs with me at the moment.
Senator FAWCETT: The other question for CASA is that I notice that in 2001 you started a process for personal electronic devices, a notice for rule-making, where it was strict to control. I also notice there have been a number of drafts and consultations of that, but I do not actually find anywhere an approved regulation around personal electronic devices. With that process that started in 2001, has CASA actually issued a regulation control on these devices yet?
CHAIR: I missed something. I was talking. We flipped somehow back to Senator Fawcett.
Senator WILLIAMS: I asked Senator Fawcett to help me with that question.
Mr McCormick: I am not aware of that, but I will take it on notice and give you a breakdown of what has happened. Did you say since 2001?
Senator WILLIAMS: That was the original notice, yes. If you could confirm that the head of power that the flight crew operate under to tell people to turn phones off is 309 Alpha, which is a strict liability offence.
So let’s help the perplexed DAS out a little…hmm so 2001 and PEDs there was a NPRM draft dealing with PEDs, see ‘here’.
Quote from the original AC 91.050:
5.1 Regulations. CASR 91.055 requires the operator and the pilot in command to prohibit or limit the operation of a PED on board an aircraft if there is reason to believe the PED may adversely affect the safety of the aircraft. CASR’s 91.050, 91.055 and 91.1010 provides the pilot in command with the necessary authority to control the use of potentially hazardous PEDs on board his/her aircraft, and obliges persons on board to comply with legitimate safety instructions.
Ok so we can see that the PEDs issue started as an AC draft in 2001, it then became an updated draft (AC 91-050) in 2003:
Draft AC 91-050(0) - Portable electronic devices
Draft AC 91-050(0) - Portable electronic devices has been updated for your review.
19 Jun 2003
New rule changes.
But after that the trail goes cold…
Oh well guess its been stuck somewhere in the drafting office for the next decade…hmm I guess there’s nothing too unusual about that, CASR 91.055 certainly wouldn’t be on its pat malone in the lost reg dept???
Thanks for that 4dogs!
Either way it is still in the drafting office waiting for what exactly??
