Kharon post
#198 on TASRR thread
:
Apart from estimates, the Pel Air committee don't have a platform to work from and Fawcett is hobbled by party lines. That leaves NX independent to carry on the work. As Sarcs points out, even a PM had trouble getting answers, this combined with the unpardonable delay from the miniscule in responding to the Pel Air recommendations, despite some serious questions being asked of Mrdak and McComic does not auger well. Transparency, truth and resolution are already running at diminishing rate of return on the industry investment.
Yesterday there was a new thread started on the GA forum that was extremely relevant to the "K" Conundrum post, it was headed
Civil Aviation Order Amendment Instrument 2013 (No.1). So I went to refer to it this AM and I discovered that it has mysteriously disappeared
...hmm..so went to history picked up the link and got the following message...
..Invalid Thread specified. If you followed a valid link, please notify the administrator...
So that perked my natural curiosity even more
?? So I went to find this amendment that the now non-existent thread was referring... COMLAW link :
Civil Aviation Order 48.1 Amendment Instrument 2013 (No. 1)- F2013L02192
The explanatory statement is of interest....
"Purpose
The purpose of Civil Aviation Order 48.1 Amendment Instrument 2013 (No. 1) (the CAO amendment) is to delete from the Civil Aviation Order 48.1 Instrument 2013 (the new CAO 48.1) 3 references to “4 December 2013” and insert “1 September 2014”.
This is consequent upon the registration of the Civil Aviation Legislation Amendment (Flight Crew Licensing Suite) Regulation 2013 (the date amendment regulations) on 25 November 2013.
These regulations changed from “4 December 2013”, to “1 September 2014”, the date of commencement of the Civil Aviation Legislation Amendment Regulation 2013 (No. 1) (the licensing suite regulations).
Background
The licensing suite regulations establish a new legislative regime for flight crew licensing. To do so, the licensing suite regulations repeal Part 5 of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 (CAR 1988) which contains the current legislative rules for flight crew licensing (see item 5 in Schedule 2 of the licensing suite regulations).
However, Part 5 also contains regulation 5.55 of CAR 1988, under which CASA may give directions establishing flight and duty time limitations for holders of flight crew licences. Such directions have been given in CAO Part 48 (comprising CAO 48.0, CAO 48.1, CAO 48.2, CAO 48.3 and CAO 48.4).
As a result of the date amendment regulations, the licensing suite regulations will repeal regulation 5.55 of CAR 1988 on 1 September 2014 (not 4 December 2013), and replace it with a new and similar directions power under regulation 210A of CAR 1988. However, a new regulation 335 of CAR 1988, inserted by the licensing suite regulations will have the effect of continuing in force CAO Part 48 as if it had been made on 1 September 2014 (not 4 December 2013)."
All reasonable I guess, so why the skullduggery??
CA
sA (yes the "s" is shrinking..
) maybe all on hols but surely something of reasonable significance, such as a CAO 48.1 instrument amendment, could be notified via at least the t.w.i.t.t.e.r guy who still seems to be working??
I also question the veracity of this eleventh hour amendment, the cynic in me suspects that this maybe heralding a pre-emptive manoeuvre to counter the NX DM on 48.1??
Note: The following quote from VIPA perhaps highlights the significance of Nick's
CAO 48.1 Disallowance Motion and why it could possibly be the watershed moment for the future of aviation safety regulation in 2014 (provided the Senators remain angry and united
):
New Regulations
The VIPA Flight Safety, Technical and Regulatory Compliance subcommittee has been looking at a number of changes in the CASA regulations over the last year. Significant rule changes are in progress at the moment that will have a significant impact on not just VIPA members but all professional pilots in Australia. Of particular concern to our profession are the changes to CAO 48, Flight and Duty times for flight crew. CASA has seemingly deliberately watered down the ICAO recommended Standards and Recommended Procedures (SARP) in this area, which has lead to a more fatiguing rule set than we currently have in CAO 48.
We are not alone in this damning assessment of the changes to CAO 48. Aus ALPA, AIPA and the Federation along with many others have all raised serious objections to the new rules. Regardless, the new rules have all but been signed into law and are waiting ratification through parliament albeit with one noted caveat. In Parliament, the legislation is subject to a motion to disallow. What this effectively means is that if a member raises objections to the new rules they will be reviewed and are then subject to ‘substantive’ change. It is our understanding that that there are members of Parliament unwilling to allow this legislation to go through Parliament unchallenged.
CASA has previously stated that the current CAO 48 is devoid of sound scientific principles to define the prescribed Flight and Duty limits cites this inadequacy to advocate for its new rule set. The new CAO 48 is supposed to be based on currently recognised and credible fatigue science. Sadly the new CAO 48.1 does not come close to satisfying the scientific principles. For example the scientific studies that ICAO relied upon to develop the SARP for FDP limits recognise that flight duty should not exceed 8 to 9 hours at the controls. The new rules routinely allow for this, which is no different to what we currently do.
Other jurisdictions around the world have adopted this ICAO SARP, which is applicable to augmented as well as unaugmented operations. Most Virgin flight crew would be well aware of the fatigue associated with 8 hours of flight time in a duty period doing return transcontinental flights. Under the new rules CASA will allow pilots to extend out to 16 hours of duty time and up to 10.5 hours of flight time.
The new FDP rules are divided into 3 tiers. (1) Basic operations for small operators, (2) Airlines with prescriptive FDP limits and (3) Airlines with no prescribed limits but a full Fatigue Risk Management System. During the consultation period for the new rules it was argued that the need for an airline to adopt an FRMS was virtually non-existent as the prescriptive limits in tier (2) were so lacking in constraint and scientific principles. Perhaps CASA designed it this way so they would not have the regulatory burden to provide oversight for such a complex system?
Should these regulations be subject to a disallowance as we expect, it may give the industry and proponents like Senator Nick Xenophon further avenue to push for meaningful changes to the new FDP rule set. VIPA FSTRC has committed to getting a seat at the table of future Notices of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) Working Groups facilitated by CASA.
Good work VIPA
...here's hoping you make a submission to the TASRR as well...?? Meanwhile it should be every IOS member's solemn duty to throw support behind Senator X and his 48.1 DM, as it would appear to be a touchy subject in the halls of Fort Fumble...