Sarcs,
Which leaves plenty of time for Parliament to properly review/repeal/amend certain parts of the instrument.
As far as I know, disallowance means "all in or all out" - they don't disallow "certain parts".
If disallowed, it goes back to the instrument maker to change the offending bits, but two things affect the level of Parliamentary scrutiny: the depth of analysis during the debate and the overall level of Parliamentary interest. The recent commentary by NX and DF on the guillotine suggests that pilot fatigue will not get any real attention, particularly as the Lib/Nats approach Government when they will automatically protect "their" safety regulator.
601 # 2201 –"There are operators and providers who are developing procedures for the implementation of this as we write. If this is disallowed, there goes 2 months work for nothing"
The framework is essentially the same as the standard industry exemptions - the main differences are the numbers and the level of continuous compliance. Like Kharon says, the procedures should be largely unchanged. However, given that CASA, through the 'operator obligations', has ensured that all AOC holders are being forced into either FRMS 'lite' or the full bit, every AOC will have specific numbers less than the published maximum numbers. Of course, the level and quality of CAA oversight combined with guessing how much and how often those numbers will be less than those apparently available (but not really!) is the new replacement for Tuesday Lotto - expensive and low probability for success!
Wouldn't it be nice if the CAO 48.1 stuff was happening because the ATSB had reviewed the fatigue science and concluded that CASA had missed a few bits
