Aviation regulatory shambles in Australia
Given the discussion on these threads, I was reading through the large number of CASA Instruments and Rulings and came across CASA Instrument 102/15 relating to the Jabiru aircraft. In part there is a statement that must be signed by intending passengers (assuming the pilot does actually tell the passenger) as follows:
‘I ACCEPT THE RISK OF BEING INJURED OR KILLED IN THE EVENT OF AN ENGINE MALFUNCTION DURING FLIGHT, NOTING THAT:
‘(A) THE AIRCRAFT MUST BE FLOWN AWAY FROM PEOPLE ON THE GROUND (AND BUILDINGS), EVEN IF THAT MEANS AN EMERGENCY LANDING AT A LOCATION THAT IS LESS SAFE FOR THAT PURPOSE; AND
‘(B) THE SAFETY OF AN EMERGENCY LANDING CANNOT BE GUARANTEED EVEN IF THERE IS A SUITABLE LANDING LOCATION.
‘I NOTE CASA’S ADVICE THAT I SHOULD NOT FLY IN THE AIRCRAFT IF I AM NOT PREPARED TO ACCEPT THE HEIGHTENED RISK INVOLVED.
‘I ACCEPT THE RISK NOTING THAT THE ENGINE MANUFACTURER IS WORKING TO IDENTIFY AND FIX THE ENGINE ISSUES AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.
‘I AM AWARE THAT CASA REQUIRES MY SIGNATURE ON THIS STATEMENT BEFORE THE FLIGHT MAY COMMENCE.
This aircraft is allowed to fly in the same airspace as ourselves and I wonder what the Australian Public at large would think of this "protection" from their aviation "safety" authority? Why do we bother with Airworthiness Standards if approvals for aircraft operations have come to this? I do not accept the caveat that the aircraft must be flown away from built up areas? Does that mean its OK for it to crash on my farm? I really think it is time to hand my wings in. This is a legislative nightmare!