I defy the possibility that anyone can fly an aircraft without transgressing at least one strict liability offence in the proposed part 91.
Lets start with fuelling alone as an example. Can't you just see inspectors running out to check your fuel gauges as you arrive somewhere?:
91.510 Fuel planning and in-flight fuel requirements
(1) The pilot in command of an aircraft commits an offence if he or she:
(a) commences a flight of the aircraft; and
(b) before the flight commences, has not planned the flight to ensure that after landing, the amount of fuel remaining in the aircraft’s fuel tanks will be at least the aircraft’s fixed fuel reserve.
Penalty: 50 penalty units.
Note For fuel planning generally, see Advisory Circular 91.210.
(2) The pilot in command of an aircraft engaged in a flight commits an offence if:
(a) the aircraft does not have sufficient fuel to:
(i) enable the aircraft to land at its intended destination; and
(ii) ensure that, after landing, the fuel remaining in the aircraft’s fuel tanks is not less than the aircraft’s fixed fuel reserve; and
(b) an alternative aerodrome is available to the pilot in command that would enable him or her to:
(i) land the aircraft safely; and
(ii) ensure that, after landing, the fuel remaining in the aircraft’s fuel tanks is not less than the aircraft’s fixed fuel reserve; and
(c) the pilot in command continues the flight to its intended destination.
Penalty: 50 penalty units.
(3) The pilot in command of an aircraft engaged in a flight commits an offence if:
(a) the aircraft has a serviceable radio on board; and
(b) the aircraft does not have sufficient fuel to:
(i) enable the aircraft to land at its intended destination; and
(ii) ensure that, after landing, the fuel remaining in the aircraft’s fuel tanks is not less than the aircraft’s fixed fuel reserve; and
(c) the pilot in command does not immediately declare a situation of urgency to Air Traffic Services.
Penalty: 25 penalty units.
(4) In this regulation:
fixed fuel reserve, for an aircraft, means the amount of fuel required to allow the aircraft to fly at normal cruising speed in International Standard Atmosphere conditions:
(a) for a rotorcraft — for at least 20 minutes; or
(b) for an aeroplane — for at least 30 minutes.
(5) An offence against subregulation (1), (2) or (3) is an offence of strict liability.
CASA can stick part 91 up its backside, period.
To put that a more polite way; the only response possible to the proposed part 91 is a complete No, Nyet, Nada, Nein - complete and total rejection of the entire draft. To attempt to cheese pare - nibbling round the edges of this turd in an attempt to make it palatable is doomed to failure as well as demonstrating, as Doubleyeweight points out, that we must collectively be suffering from "Stockholm Syndrome if we even try to reason with these bastards.
Start by removing all the "strict liability" clauses. After that it may be possible to have a discussion.
As for you AVM. Skidmore, If you think that there is anything in part 91 that does anything to enhance flight safety at all, then you are as bad as the rest of them.
I could go on about the excuses CASA may make for this "consultation" draft - that it is a lawyers "ambit claim" document and we didn't really mean it, but that is not the way to begin a cooperative discussion in a spirit of openness and good faith.
You cannot get to a good result by starting from a draft like this!
Stick it up your arse CASA! That is my comment.