Differences between Australian and New Zealand Aviation Rules.

[weloveseaplanes]

New Zealand is a small mountains island nation with inclement weather.
Australia is a large continental land mass with good weather.

What differences are there in the aviation rules of the two nations?

1. Single Engine RPT Ops : NZCAA allows : CASA prohibits
2. Single Engine IFR : NZCAA allows* :CASA prohibits
3. IFR ADBS : NZCAA does not require : CASA requires now**
4. VFR ADBS : NZCAA does not require : CASA requires in 2019
5. Overseas users of the Rules : NZCAA : PNG, Vanuatu, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Kiribati : CASA : no one


* Cessna Caravan and Piltaus PC12
** RAAF allowed to operate without ADSB

[thorn bird]

You forgot to mention,

The Kiwi regs you can carry in one hand.

The Australian reg's you need two shipping containers.

Kiwi reg's achieve equivalent safety outcomes to the USA, statistically the safest country to fly in.

Australian reg's achieve so called safety by limiting participation. Statistically Australia is no safer than the USA and arguably less safe.

Kiwi reg's are aligned with the USA where most of our aircraft and equipment comes from.

Australian reg's don't align with anyone, not even the Authority they are allegedly modelled on.

The Kiwi reg's were completed in around two years and cost about five million $$$.

Australian reg's have taken thirty years and have cost about half a billion $$$ so far, and still not complete.
By the time they are complete, if ever, there will be no industry left for them to apply to.

Kiwi reg's are written in plain English so every one can understand them.

Australian reg's are written in legalise and not even the lawyers can understand them.

Kiwi reg's foster and promote their industry.

Australian reg's kill it.

Kiwi reg's are by and large ICAO compliant.

Australian reg's are not even close given the number of pages of differences.

Kiwi reg's are a mature rule set adopted by many in our region.

Australian reg's are mostly regarded as a joke around the world.

Kiwi reg's operate under the rule of law and just culture.

Australian reg's operate under the law of CAsA, just culture is an anathema to them.

[weloveseaplanes]

Thank you for your detailed reply Thorn Bird.
It makes for sad reading, but there is always hope.

May I ask if anyone knows which countries use the NZCAA rules and which countries use the Australian CASA rules please?

[LeadSled]

Statistically Australia is no safer than the USA and arguably less safe.

Thornbird,
Not arguable, a simple fact, and by a large margin, when comparing like with like, and not using the manufactured/doctored definitions used to guild the lilly here.
And this includes airlines, as well as GA.
Tootle pip!!

[Daqqy152]

Quoting from New Southern Sky
"ADS-B mandates have not been issued; however this should be planned for and equipment choices should be aligned.
The NAANP proposes that all aircraft operating above FL245 must have operational ADS-B capability from 31 December 2018, extending to all aircraft operating in all controlled airspace from the end of 2021."

From the looks of things if you want to fly in any controlled airspace over here IFR or VFR ADS-B required.

[chimbu warrior]

May I ask if anyone knows which countries use the NZCAA rules and which countries use the Australian CASA rules please?

Users of NZ rules -
PNG
Vanuatu
Samoa
Solomon Islands
Tonga
Kiribati
.............plus NZ of course.

Users of Australian rules
PNG used to, but switched to NZ rules. Says it all really.
.............some Aussies use Australian rules, but not by choice.

[thorn bird]

Chimbu,
I have heard Mongolia has or is adopting NZ rules.
There are also states in the Caribbean interested in adopting the NZ rule set, which are after all, "Modernised" FAR's.
EASA virtually wiped out general aviation in Europe, they are only now trying to rewrite them. Maybe that is why we, after making a start modelling ours on the US reg's before we abruptly stopped and went the other way, are fulfilling a publicly stated aim of a senior CAsA person that he preferred GA to be wiped out.
Those early rules are the only successful ones we have ever written.

[weloveseaplanes]

Thanks all.

Was there some discussion a ways back about how a qualified instructor in NZ can do flight instructing without an AOC but in OZ an AOC is needed?

[thorn bird]

Cost of an AOC in Australia? I know of one that cost a quarter of a million, just to operate two aircraft.

[tail wheel]

And I heard that Australia funded the adoption of the NZ regulations in PNG, under a foreign aid grant?

[27/09]

Perhaps Australia might like a foreign aid grant to enable the adoption of the New Zealand rules. :p

[Ixixly]

Couldn't we all just apply for NZ Registrations for our Aircraft and get the LAMEs to join in as well with their Qualifications? Might be hard for CASA to claim to be superior when everyone starts walking away from them!

[aroa]

Thats what everyone has to do !! Walk away. CAsA is irrelevant and destructive to the industry....SO, a mass walk out is a MUST.

Taily. Highly paid CAsA "consultants" were in the PNG change oever trough

[Gabilian]

I have heard Mongolia has or is adopting NZ rules.thorn bird, when I was last in Mongolia over 6 years ago they had already well and truly adopted the NZ rules.

[bolthead]

Singapore. Did they do it too?

[thorn bird]

Bolts, Singapore is the only 100% ICAO compliant country in the world.

I think that they figured as they were spending vast amounts of money each year supporting ICAO, instead of ignoring ICAO doctrine, it would be more cost effective to simply accept their direction instead of pissing about wasting their citizens money trying to develop their own version.

My god a revelation, ICAO does know what it is talking about, aircraft are not falling out of the sky everywhere, its actually perfectly safe to fly into Singapore.

[Sandy Reith]

Cost of an AOC in Australia? I know of one that cost a quarter of a million, just to operate two aircraft.
CASA will tell you that it's not called an AOC any longer for a flying school licence. So round and round grinds the bureaucratic monster back to when I started my flying school before the invention of AOCs. Except that I paid no fee and the rules were understandable and workable even though over the top but that was quietly recognised by the Boss.
So now at an airport nearby, a major regional centre, an instructor has been waiting since November last to recommence the flying school after paying $8000 up front in Feb or March. The previous incumbent left to work for CASA. In the US this instructor would have been earning and teaching immediately. CASA or whatever it was called at the time, has been toying with the idea of independent instructors teaching without AOC or other like such instrument (let's keep changing the terminology to obfuscate and maintain confusion while hiding the awful truth) for at least 30 years. Last advice from Mr. Skidmore went something like this...'our training system is so good we can't afford to risk change'...
We really should prevent all those visiting US pilots from sullying our skies, about 70% of whom were trained by instructors without AOC, its got to be too risky.

[Sandy Reith]

Bolts, Singapore is the only 100% ICAO compliant country in the world.

I think that they figured as they were spending vast amounts of money each year supporting ICAO, instead of ignoring ICAO doctrine, it would be more cost effective to simply accept their direction instead of pissing about wasting their citizens money trying to develop their own version.

My god a revelation, ICAO does know what it is talking about, aircraft are not falling out of the sky everywhere, its actually perfectly safe to fly into Singapore.

What would happen if CASA and all its rules disappeared in a cloud of smoke today? Firstly the insurance companies would be more prominent in oversight and no doubt would insist on ICAO compliance. Passengers would turn to all our airports pretty much as normal. I would fly my planes happily, in a great frame of mind knowing that I wasn't going to whacked at the next medical or have to waste another perfectly good set of control cables in another 15 years, etc. I also would not have to waste time and money trying to get a fair go for GA in Bureacratalia. If we have to have rules then those of Aruba would suit fine, about 100 pages the lot. Simple rules of the air rather like road rules. It does not have to be complicated.

[Konev]

I have been toying with the idea of moving across the ditch to fly in a somewhat warmer climate and enjoy a beach.

You are not helping that idea.

[Sandy Reith]

I have been toying with the idea of moving across the ditch to fly in a somewhat warmer climate and enjoy a beach.

You are not helping that idea.

For the first time in a very long time, recently, there are more Aussies settling in NZ than the other way around. The flow has reversed, people voting with their feet. I have family in NZ, it's a very good option and offers some regions which are outstanding places to live, especially for growing children. But we live in hopes, so Konev come over and help us achieve reform in aviation!

[Ovation]

Unfortunately for most of us, CASA is the gold standard for unfettered bureaucracy staffed by people who have little or no interest or coal face experience, and in particular no understanding of general aviation. Their back office departments are run by little empire builders whose pay scale is proportional to their staff numbers. It's a government department, so there's no urgency whatsoever, in fact the longer they take to do something the longer they have a job, even if they can't readily be sacked or made redundant. There seems to be a policy of why should a regulation be made simple to understand, when if it's difficult to interpret they'll think they've done their job properly. I have no idea how many useless people CASA have in their back office , but if they fired half of them no-one in the real world would know or care, and there would be no impact on safety.

I'd like to say there are CASA employees out in the field that I've have very positive dealings with, but then there are others who have been biased and turned a blind eye to blatant, systemic and proven criminal breaches of regulations, while others have been brutal in punishing simple or innocent breaches that only exist because of over-complicated regulation that doesn’t exist elsewhere in the world.

[LeadSled]

And I heard that Australia funded the adoption of the NZ regulations in PNG, under a foreign aid grant? Too True -- Project Balus, largely run by Doug Roser, whom old hands will remember as a head of Australian CAA, before CASA.
Tootle pip!!

PS: Given the Trans Tasman Mutual Recognition Treaty, NZ is a really good option, particularly for commercial operations. The AOC Thorn Bird mentioned could have been achieved in NZ for around NZ$30,000 with a guaranteed time limit, they would have been up and running in Australia on a TTMRA AOC literally years ago.

[LeadSled]

---- only exist because of over-complicated regulation that doesn’t exist elsewhere in the world.

Nominated as a problem as long ago as the mid-1980s in the "Lane" report, an inquiry by highly qualified persons, much like Forsyth, and accorded the same respect by the aviation bureaucracy.

Lane called it: "---- creating inadvertent criminals" .

Tootle pip!!