004,
One that some time back brought tears of laughter, or was it just tears, was a CASA claim that they should "regulate" Telstra landlines that carried AFTN and similar aviation related telex, fax etc.
I can confirm the nonsense about GSE, they are even demanding this sort of detail for a non-scheduled operation, the time and cost to produce such information, on the basis that, one day, you might go there, is beyond unrealistic.
One ripper proposal a while back ( the whole package was dropped) would have limited single engine helicopters flying any "populace areas" and would have only permitted "commercial operations" over per-surveyed CASA approved routes elsewhere --- considering what one routinely uses helicopters for, this was was off the clock on the "Stupid-O-Meter".
I expect it will prop up again sometime soon, these sorts of crazy ideas develop a life of their own in the bowels of CASA.
----- because they are the only ones who understand the reg's.
Thornbird,
Actually, such is the convoluted contradictory mess, even the lawyers can't agree what the rules mean, otherwise we would not have so many protracted AAT cases.
----but am just saying CASA do produce a lot of informative material.
ARM,
But is it lawful, ie; if you comply exactly with type of publication you mention, that CASA produces, such as a CAAP or AC, will you be in compliance.
Unfortunately, the CASA record of actions against license holders ( I am thinking of a case against a LAME, another involving a pilot who had complied precisely with his company manual, which complied precisely with the AOCM) says that you cannot rely on such documents, unlike an AC in the US, or a CAP or AMC in UK.
Tootle pip!!