Part 61 (664 pages)
Two_Dogs,
You must have the Readers Digest version, including MOS and CASA policy/ training material, it is over 2200 pages and growing.
The draft Part 91 is a dreadful document, who knows what Part 135 will look like, but we already know that, if the Part 135 draft remains the same, "aerodrome standards for public transport" alone will wipe out most light aircraft "charter" as we have known it.
Part 133 is just as bad, the proposed severe limitations on single engine helicopters is completely unjustified by any risk analysis, much less cost/benefit justification.The impact on SAR/EMS will be substantial, right back to a load of nonsense first aired in about 2003.
What would you have in place of S3A and S9 that would make any real difference?
Arm Out the Window,
A re-written Act, as recommended by the PAP in 1998, to allow compliance with bi-partisan Government policy that all regulation must be justified, and all regulation must be cost/benefit justified. You should really look at how well the NZ or US legislation handles the balancing act.
It was well put in Byron's directive 01/2007 (now expunged, like much else from the CASA web site), which was recommended in the Hawke Report, and claimed by CASA to the Forsyth Review to have been incorporated as a Hawke recommendation within CASA rule making.
I have yet to see a CASA cost/benefit study of any serious nature (and I have been around quite a while), and certainly not one that satisfies the Productivity Commission or the OBPR definitions. In fact, it is clear that many in CASA do not know the difference between cost/benefit and cost effectiveness studies.
Tootle pip!!