Part 61 - Some Interesting Numbers

[poteroo]

As a retiree with clearly not enough domestic chores, I have been delving into what's in Part 61. Please correct mu 'numbers' if you like:

Size

NZ Part 61 - 110 pages plus some AC's that act as standards

US FAA Part 61 - 187 pages and I couldn't find any 'standards' published (maybe they rightly expect instructors to know how to train to the FAA's published standards?)

CASR Part 61 - 661 pages at last count, ( and that doesn't include the ridiculous number of instruments developed to plug the gaps). Then add in 664 pages in the Manual of Standards - (although I think that it's probably more than this?)

Language

The NZ Part 61 is written in clear, understandable English. The US Part 61 is a little more legalistic - but still understandable.

The CASA Part 61 has been written in full blown 'legalese' - perhaps intending to block any loopholes that criminal pilots and their defence might exploit.


Weight of Paper

My Part 61 licence in it's CASA folder, measures 165mm x 115mm x 18mm, and weighs 186g

My RAAus Certificate is a standard credit card size, measures 85 mm x 54mm x 1mm and weighs 6g

My old US PPL card weighs just 2 g and is credit card size.


Penalties

CASR Part 61 contains 39 specified offences, each an offence of strict liability, and attracting a penalty of 50 points - probably at $50 per point. It is illuminating to learn that 4 of these offences relate to pilot logbooks.

US and NZ Part 61s - couldn't see any penalties?


After 53 years of flying GA/RAAus in Australia, I'm gaining the impression that our regulator is far and away more successful than those Kiwis and Yanks. http://www.pprune.org/forums/images/smilies2/icon_rolleyes.gif

[havick]

FAA has the PTS (practical test standards) for each license/certificate. Very easy to interpret and train students to.

[Lead Balloon]

The missing part of your analysis is the comparison of the accident and incident rates.

It may be that as a consequence of all those extra pages of regulations and all those repititions of offences, Australia has a lower rate of accidents and incidents than the comparator jurisdictions.

Or not.

[glenb]

And then go through all those additional requirements we have over those countries. Actually try and work out how many of our additional pages actually do anything at all to contribute to Safety or not? Maybe we have so many extra pages because of the failure to achieve "clear and concise aviation safety standards" in breech of the requirement in 1c of the Act, or not?

[Checklist Charlie]

As yet, nobody from the regulator has been able to identify to me how or where my personal safety or that of my passengers safety has been improved, increased, enhanced or in anyway changed from what it was pre Part 61 to now what it is post Part 61 implementation.

So why did we do it?

Not interested in the harmonisation or compliance excuses, only interested in the safety aspect. It is after all called a Civil Aviation SAFETY Regulation Part 61.

CC

[compressor stall]

Perhaps, if you have the time, you could extract some individual regulations and paste the three countries' versions so we can compare them, inclusive of our verbose legalese.

[kaz3g]

Penalties

CASR Part 61 contains 39 specified offences, each an offence of strict liability, and attracting a penalty of 50 points - probably at $50 per point. It is illuminating to learn that 4 of these offences relate to pilot logbooks

Try $170 per penalty unit!

Kaz

[Lead Balloon]

$180 actually.

Until the automatic indexation provisions kick in ...

[Jabawocky]

Actually try and work out how many of our additional pages actually do anything at all to contribute to Safety or not?

glenb

You are clearly not with the game my friend. It is all about safety, 100% about safely covering the CASA legal departments arse. And farkall to do with the safety of yours or your passengers.

poteroo
This thread should be printed and posted/emailed to Mr Skidmore.

[chimbu warrior]

Why not compare how many pilots/aircraft/CASA staff in 1976, 1996 and 2016? I get the distinct impression that the ratio of CASA (and predecessors) staff per aircraft in this country has about doubled.............but I don't feel twice as safe.

[LeadSled]

Or not. Is the correct answer re. FAA, by a substantial margin in favour of the US.
Tootle pip!!

PS 1:FAA Airman Certification Standards, --- have just replaced the Practical Test Standards, literally in the last few weeks. Really only a bureaucratic name change.
PS2: FAR penalties are there, all listed in a separate FAR --- more to the point, pro rata to AU, FAA prosecutions and even administrative penalties are rare, compared to here.
Although I never personally checked the figures, it was claimed, several years ago, that in the subject year of the study, there were more enforcement actions with some form of penalty in Australia, than in US, despite roughly ten times as many pilots in US.

[gassed budgie]

Here you go. Someone's already been hard at it!

http://amroba.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Volume-13-Issue-5-0516.pdf

Aussie Part 61 in 134 pages. Who would have thought.

http://amroba.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Alternative-Part-61-CASS-Part-61.pdf

CASA, where are you?

[actus reus]

I posted this previously:

"For my sins, I have obtained AOCs for various entities from Malta, the Bahamas, the USA, the UK, HKG, China, NZ and Oz; that is what I do.

I can tell you one thing, Oz may have convoluted regulations but they are not unique amongst regulators in that respect.

For a Chinese company I looked at an Oz AOC as they were that way 'inclined'. So, I checked the newly released (at the time) Part 61.

If you compare the Oz reg 61, single paragraph per page as opposed to, say, the FAA where they use smaller font than Oz and use two columns per page, a word count will show you (different numbers for PDF versus WORD), that the Oz Part 61 compared to the CFAR Part 61 and the 'Special' CFAR Part 61 are within plus or minus 5%.

NZ has more words than both.

Both the FAA and NZ have seperate 'offence' regulations that I have not added into the word counts.

So, CASA needs to get itself righted but they are light years ahead of many other nations and ICAO recognises that."

[Arm out the window]

You'll be howled down now actus - facts getting in the way of a good rant etc.

[Lead Balloon]

The word count isn't, in fact, within 5%.

Another key difference is that the industry in the USA in fact understands what FAR 61 means.

In any event, Checklist Charlie nailed it: There was, in fact, no air safety problem to which Australia's new Part 61 is a solution.

[WannaBeBiggles]

If someone is happy to collate some more statistics including aircraft movements, numbers in each category and accident/fatality numbers across etc I'm happy to create some infographics and post them on a website. They do say a picture is worth a thousand words.

@Dick Smith, here's you chance to come to the party and backup all your statements with some hard facts.

[Ixixly]

Not entirely true Lead Balloon, the safety of a few peoples jobs in CASA were likely at risk, it's difficult to remain employed when you've got nothing to do, so why not dream up some new threats and fix them?

[thorn bird]

"So, CASA needs to get itself righted but they are light years ahead of many other nations and ICAO recognises that."

From your CV, outlined in your post Actus, there can be little doubt you are an expert in aviation regulation as no doubt is Arm out the window.

Perhaps the CAsA DAS is right when he claims half the world is beating a path to his door to adopt Australia's light years ahead regulations, though there seems very little evidence that anyone is actually doing it.

I am just a pilot, albeit a rather old and decrepit one, but I have a fair amount of experience piloting around the world. From my personal experiences only, I have never had much problem understanding the intent and requirements of other jurisdictions regulations. Maybe I'm just an uneducated dumbass but I have enormous difficulty, as much as I try, in trying to interpret what exactly the OZ version of Part 61 is intended to achieve.

Anecdotally, from other dumbasses I've talked to around the industry, including many CAsA FOI's if they are honest, there seems to me to be the similar problems of comprehension with quite a few people about the place.

Again purely from my own experience, and anecdotally from others, there would appear to be rather large cost burdens attached to compliance. For me about a third of my income has evaporated as the cost of compliance is unsustainable, purely on a cost/return basis.

The thing I find hard to fathom is, is this the intention of part 61 or is it to provide a framework for improved safety? From my experience, as a "framework", Australia's part 61 is very extensive and prescriptive.

Again purely from personal experience, micro-management can lead to unintended consequences, especially when embedded in criminal law. It’s difficult, especially in aviation, to micro-manage events where the environments they occur in are infinitely variable from behind a desk in Canberra.

There are bits and pieces contained in the MOS where to comply, in certain aircraft, would place the aircraft in jeopardy, not I suggest an intended consequence.

There was a recent TV program on the biggest accident in aviation history at Tenerife, where it was suggested a contributing factor was one crews actions may have been accredited to their concerns about breaching a prescriptive regulation regarding duty time.

An unintended consequence?

One could surmise a lot of people lost their lives through an unintended consequence.

I am aware of several instances here in Australia where fear of retribution has lead to what appears to me to be poor operational decisions that could have compromised safety, but then I'm not an expert, I just fly aircraft.

Your advice that ICAO is very happy with the way Australia is conducting its regulatory affairs is heartening news, especially viewed against the myriad differences Australia has posted against ICAO recommendations and the observations of an ICAO audit.

Time will tell I guess. I don’t think the full financial impact of Part 61 is yet apparent.
However from anecdotal evidence, as the industry continues to decline helped along by Part 61, safety statistics will improve as less and less aviating occurs, safety after all is the intended consequence.

[mcgrath50]

CFAR Part 61 and the 'Special' CFAR Part 61 are within plus or minus 5%

The word count isn't, in fact, within 5%.

Pretty innovative document to have a word count that is both within and not within 5%. That sort of changing text must have been what all the money was spent on.

[actus reus]

ARM,

You are quite right, I was waiting for the font of all knowledge to decry me.

mcgrath,

Yes, if Lead Balloon said it, it automatically is correct. Well, not in this case.

As for the NZ and offences, the applicable document is the 'Civil Aviation (Offences) Regulations 2006'.

Civil Aviation (Offences) Regulations 2006 (SR 2006/168) (as at 15 April 2016) Schedule 1 Offence provisions and penalties ? New Zealand Legislation (http://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2006/0168/latest/DLM390905.html)

While you look at this lengthy document, please note the financial size of the penalties.

[actus reus]

Cleared,

I agree; that would be the way to go. Also, with the NZ offences, you also have to look at offences under the ACT which are not included in the regulations as such.

Why this need to look at multiple documents, as in NZ, as opposed to a consolidated 'one stop shop'?

The 'one document' approach is the most user friendly way to go but there is certainly room for improvement in most places in the aviation world, including CASA, the NZCAA and, dare I say it, the FAA.

[LeadSled]

Why this need to look at multiple documents, as in NZ, as opposed to a consolidated 'one stop shop'?Actus,
Whatever you are smoking, it must be No.1 Good Sh1t!!!

Haven't you noticed we have an Act AND Regulations ( that's two "books") plus Manuals of Standards (another "book" of generally humongous proportions) plus "policy letters" and a few more, AMCs etc., if you look closely enough.

"consolidated one stop shop"??? This is a good one even for you, with your uncritical support of all things CASA.

I just can't imagine why we had the ASRR (and so many before it, including Royal Commissions) obviously it is not needed, along with the now who knows how many Legislative Instruments attached to Part 61. Just wrong headed, misguided industry, again, I guess.

Tootle pip!!

PS: The only ASRR recommendation CASA is pursuing with great dispatch is the one that results in a third tier of regulations: More Regulations, Whooppee!!

[actus reus]

Sled,

I am not a simpleton; we all know that there are multiple documents that must be consulted

in aviation in every jurisdiction.

And I do not support 'all things CASA'.

In your little world you may consider that no one knows anything other than OZ.

The ASRR is an unworthy document. Not from the fact that it criticises CASA, but from the

fact that it does NOT test the truth of any accusation made or position taken. It is an

'opinion' piece, not much else.

I am not saying it is not correct; what I am saying is that it is a document that does not and

will not ever stand the test of scrupulous probity.

The most recent graduating class of the UNSW aviation programme were told that in their

formal dinner commencement speech (not that I had anything to do with it).

And, feel free to correct me if I am wrong, I believe Forsyth is the Chair of their advisory

board!

[Lead Balloon]

You obviously didn't read or comprehend many of the submissions of the representative bodies to the ASRR, actus.

But in a way you are correct. The Review was merely the usual distracting ploy used by governments to avoid doing or taking responsibility for anything that's not politically useful for the time being. The government needed a distraction that would "not ever stand the test of scrupulous probity". Hopefully some of the submitters have learned an important lesson and will not be fooled again.

[actus reus]

Balloon,

My point was that the submissions were never tested in any manner and that is obvious in the report. If someone said 'it'; 'it' was taken as fact.

That is unacceptable if anyone wants their report to be taken seriously. I think that Truss lamented the day that he ever promised all and sundry that he would have a 'review'. That is most probably the reason that he did nothing with the report for months and months.

He had no idea anyway and was on his way to his long overdue retirement, in my opinion.

Having said all that, I am in fierce agreement with all that you say.

Cheers to better times!

[thorn bird]

Would'nt it be easier, and considerably cheaper to do what Singapore did and just adopt ICAO recommended reg's? Save a lot of argument as well.
CAsA would still not have to take responsibility for anything, anything untoward they could just blame it on ICAO.
With the half billion $$ saved we might even get the development sharks off our airports.

[LeadSled]

The ASRR is an unworthy document. Not from the fact that it criticises CASA, but from the fact that it does NOT test the truth of any accusation made or position taken. It is an 'opinion' piece, not much else.Actus,
I have heard some nonsense statements in my time by the sycophants of CASA, but that just about takes the cake.

Clearly, in your distorted view, unless every submission can be cross examined, it cannot be accepted as valid, it is just an "opinion". Not objective.

Whether you want to accept it or not, close to 300 submissions, including from every major operator in the country, was critical of CASA ---- and you want to delude yourself that those views are just "opinion" ---- "opinion" on a large scale that there are very serious issues in CASA and with CASA's approach to aviation safety administration.

But just opinion, not objective fact, despite the "factual" examples given in many submissions.

On of the things that struck the two overseas experts that assisted David Forsyth was the sameness of the complaints of CASA operation, from the biggest to the most lowly contributor. More normally, one would expect relatively restrained input from major airlines, and the more outlandish complaints to come from disaffected individuals.

In this case, it was the fact that the major operators had very much the same complaints about CASA, that had a major impact on the Canadian and the Englishman.

And you have the gall to suggest it is "just one opinion". That is is not objectively true.

Maybe it is "just one opinion", but it is the considered opinion of the greater part of whole Australian aviation community, including multi-billion dollar businesses that contribute significantly the the Australia economy, and you want to write then of as not really having a worthwhile view of the shortcomings of CASA.

The arrogance of your "opinion" is breathtaking, and a good measure of the seriousness of the issues that beset Australian aviation thanks (but no thanks) to CASA.

Tootle pip!!

PS: Thorney,
FAA helpfully publishes a compete ICAO style set of model regulations, free to anybody, that are ICAO compliant, and designed for third world countries that are incapable of producing their own compliant and workable regulations.

[thorn bird]

There you go Leadie, exactly what a bankrupt country like Australia should take advantage of, rather than pissing another half billion dollars up against the wall, a half billion that we will have to Borrow.
The only consolation, third world we may be, but you can still drink the water......for now.

[actus reus]

Sled,

I could give you chapter and verse where your statements concerning the inputs that led to the the Forsyth drivel are just plainly wrong: wrong; wrong; wrong.

And by the way, I happen to personally know both the 'Englishman' and the 'Canadian' which you may not?

Their 'view' of the report will come out in time.

Patience, grasshopper.

You are just a fool. I am not going to waste my time with any more of your stupidity.

Tootle PiP!!