The New rules interpretation thread.

[compressor stall]

So you’re in the left seat from Sydney to Perth at FL380. Can you take a pee in the lav without either copping a $8500 dollar fine or descending OCTA?

91.635 Communication monitoring in controlled airspaces
(1) The pilot in command of an aircraft for a flight contravenes this subregulation if:
(a) during the flight, the aircraft is flown in controlled airspace; and
(b) the pilot in command does not continuously monitor the primary communications medium used by air traffic control while flying in that airspace.
(2) A person commits an offence of strict liability if the person contravenes subregulation (1).
Penalty: 50 penalty units.

91.640 Use of radio outside controlled airspaces—listening watch of radio transmissions
(1) The pilot in command of an aircraft for a flight contravenes this subregulation if:
(a) the aircraft is fitted with, or carries, a radio; and
(b) the aircraft is flown by a pilot who is qualified, eligible or authorised to use the radio:
(i) for an Australian aircraft (other than a Part 103 aircraft or a Part 131 aircraft)—under Part 61 or 64; or
(ii) for a foreign registered aircraft—under a law of the aircraft's State of registry or the State of the operator; or
(iii) for a Part 103 aircraft—by a Part 103 ASAO; or
(iv) for a Part 131 aircraft—by a Part 131 pilot authorisation; and
(c) the aircraft is outside controlled airspace; and
(d) radio transmissions are not continuously monitored by:
(i) the pilot in command of the aircraft for the flight; or
(ii) another pilot who occupies a pilot seat during the flight.
(2) A person commits an offence of strict liability if the person contravenes subregulation (1).
Penalty: 50 penalty units.

[Capn Rex Havoc]

In my previous airline - (EK) - when CM1 left the flight deck, CM2 becomes the Pilot in Command.
So I don't see any rule contravention there Compressor Stall.

[compressor stall]

Yes, logical, but in reference to this?
121.495 Pilot in command
(1) A pilot is qualified as pilot in command for a flight of an aeroplane if:
(a) the pilot meets the minimum flying experience requirements specified, in accordance with subregulation (2), in the aeroplane operator's exposition for the aeroplane; and
(b) the pilot has successfully completed command training that complies with regulation 121.565 for the aeroplane operator and an aeroplane; and
(c) the pilot is:
(i) if the aeroplane is an Australian aircraft—authorised to pilot the aeroplane during the flight as pilot in command under Part 61; or
(ii) if the aeroplane is a foreign registered aircraft—authorised to pilot the aeroplane during the flight as pilot in command by the aeroplane's State of registry.
(2) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(a), the aeroplane operator's exposition must include minimum flying experience requirements for all aeroplanes operated by the operator for Part 121 operations.

and why only when OCTA can it be another pilot? 91.640 1(d)2.

[t_cas]

“Monitoring” and “listening watch” are similar.

[compressor stall]

“Monitoring” and “listening watch” are similar.
Dunno about you but I can't do either "continuously" from the pisser.

The existing rules CAR 243 make sense - the PIC ensures that one is maintained. This is akin to the new OCTA one. But why in the new regs when in CTA is it different being PIC only? And the fine has doubled from 25 penalty units to 50?CIVIL AVIATION REGULATIONS 1988 - REG 243 (1) When an aircraft is equipped with radio apparatus for use during flight, the pilot in command must maintain a listening watch, or must ensure that a listening watch is maintained, at all times commencing immediately prior to the time at which the aircraft commences to move on the manoeuvring area prior to flight and lasting until the aircraft is brought to a stop at the apron or other point of termination of the flight.

[Chronic Snoozer]

So you’re in the left seat from Sydney to Perth at FL380. Can you take a pee in the lav without either copping a $8500 dollar fine or descending OCTA?

Can you reach the toilet bowl from the left seat?

[compressor stall]

https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/800x400/1623803836_723650f6db2b51ac3485b3a1092021fa24e7138c.jpeg

and text to make 10

[zanthrus]

https://youtu.be/AmA7Nm4qvGE

[Angle of Attack]

Most Airlines F/O’s have a command Instrument rating on type so I would say that would satisfy the Command training they speak of. Having said that the CARS have always been a dogs breakfast designed for a barnstorming operation, so I’d rather interpret the intent, not the actual meaning.

[BuzzBox]

So you’re in the left seat from Sydney to Perth at FL380. Can you take a pee in the lav without either copping a $8500 dollar fine or descending OCTA?

Try 121.535 Relief of Pilot in Command:

(1) The operator and the pilot in command of an aeroplane for a flight each contravene this subregulation if:(a) the pilot in command delegates the conduct of the flight; and
(b) the delegation is not permitted by either subregulation (2) or (3).
General
(2) The pilot in command of an aeroplane for a flight may delegate the conduct of the flight to a pilot who is qualified under regulation 121.495 as pilot in command for the flight.
Flight above flight level 200
(3) The pilot in command of an aeroplane for a flight may delegate the conduct of the flight above flight level 200 to a pilot who meets the requirements mentioned in subregulation (4).
(4) The requirements are as follows:(a) the pilot must hold an air transport pilot licence;(b) the pilot must be qualified under regulation 121.500 as co‑pilot for the flight;(c) the pilot must have the flying experience required by regulation 121.480 for the flight;(d) the pilot must have the knowledge of the route of the flight required by the operator’s exposition.(5) For the purposes of paragraph (4)(d), the operator’s exposition must include the knowledge the pilot must have of the route of the flight.


I take that to mean the PIC can delegate command of the aircraft to an appropriately qualified co-pilot above FL200.

[Icarus2001]

There is much confusing of PIC being in the flight deck or handling the controls. They are not related.

[Sparrows.]

Try 121.535 Relief of Pilot in Command:



I take that to mean the PIC can delegate command of the aircraft to an appropriately qualified co-pilot above FL200.

Not if they don’t have an ATPL, which is common for FO’s in today’s age of an ATPL flight test.

[noclue]

Only says you must monitor, not respond 👍

[Blueskymine]

But then Second officers with cruise relief ratings regularly solo from the left or right seat while the FO or captain relieve themselves.

[BuzzBox]

Not if they don’t have an ATPL, which is common for FO’s in today’s age of an ATPL flight test.

I did say 'appropriately qualified', ie with an ATPL as per the regs.

[Paragraph377]

The ‘R’egulations work fine, CASA says so. And Mr Carmody got a medal and a reacharound by the Queen for his service to aviation, so the Regs simply must be ok.

[Pastor of Muppets]

Pretty much everything wrong with this once fine industry right here!

[Foxxster]

Can’t they just install a radio in the bog. And while they are at it, duplicates of the major instruments. A couple of video screens would fit surely. Could probably get a control yoke in as well. And some rudder pedals.

[BuzzBox]

But then Second officers with cruise relief ratings regularly solo from the left or right seat while the FO or captain relieve themselves.

True, and common sense should prevail. Unfortunately, ‘CASA’ and ‘common sense’ seem to be mutually exclusive.

[Car RAMROD]

Sounds like a good question for your Friendly Operations Inspector! :E

[Mach E Avelli]

Rules are for the guidance of wise men and the blind obedience of fools.
Go for that piss before you wet your pants.

[Lead Balloon]

I wouldn’t sweat it, unless you are Superman or otherwise able to derive support in the atmosphere from the reactions of the air on your own.


The aircraft is flying, not the pilot. Even if (1)( b) is interpreted to mean “while the pilot in command is flying the aircraft in that airspace”, the pilot in command is not flying the aircraft while s/he is in the toilet.


(1) The pilot in command of an aircraft for a flight contravenes this subregulation if:

(a) during the flight, the aircraft is flown in controlled airspace; and
(b) the pilot in command does not continuously monitor the primary communications medium used by air traffic control while flying in that airspace.

[Transition Layer]

Maybe a CPDLC interface in the ****ter would do the trick!

[BuzzBox]

Maybe a CPDLC interface in the ****ter would do the trick!

Or a headset with a very long lead.

[neville_nobody]

Rules are for the guidance of wise men and the blind obedience of fools.
Go for that piss before you wet your pants.

Which is all well and good until something goes wrong whilst you're out and then some overzealous CASA official looking to deflect blame find these rules.

How about we get a decent ruleset instead?

[compressor stall]

So is the consensus interpretation that if you are flying in CTA, if you want to leave the cockpit even for a quick pee, you must have a co-pilot that has either:

1. A Captain checked to line on same fleet
2. A Co-pilot with an ATPL who has been line checked?

But if you are flying OCTA, you can just hand over to the other pilot?

[Dehavillanddriver]

As the captain of a long haul aeroplane with 4 pilots, I remain the pilot in command even when in the bunk asleep.

That said, the way that is framed shows the lack of understanding the people who author these things really have, which is sad, gone are the days when the regulators were experienced industry professionals, not the regulators are the OLC and someone who came out of law school into the public service.

[C441]

Not so long ago I had to have a Flight Attendant babysitting me on the flightdeck when the other pilot went for a slash. They're obviously competent at flightdeck oversight so just get 'em back up now! :ok:

[Lead Balloon]

Under the Australian rules, isn’t the operator obliged to nominate one, and one only, person to be the PIC of an aircraft for a flight? If yes, how can someone else be PIC during that flight while the nominated person is using in the amenities (or sleeping)?

[compressor stall]

Under the Australian rules, isn’t the operator obliged to nominate one, and one only, person to be the PIC of an aircraft for a flight? If yes, how can someone else be PIC during that flight while the nominated person is using in the amenities (or sleeping)?

121.490 Assignment to duty as pilot in command

(1) The operator of an aeroplane for a flight contravenes this subregulation if, when the flight begins, none of the pilots assigned as flight crew members for the flight is assigned to duty as the pilot in command of the aeroplane for the flight.

(2) A person commits an offence of strict liability if the person contravenes subregulation (1).

[BuzzBox]

Under the Australian rules, isn’t the operator obliged to nominate one, and one only, person to be the PIC of an aircraft for a flight? If yes, how can someone else be PIC during that flight while the nominated person is using in the amenities (or sleeping)?

121.535 provides for relief of the PIC, but it doesn’t explain how an FO or SO without an ATPL can be left in charge.

[SHVC]

Even if the PIC cant leave their seat whilst OCTA or whatever this is about. If the PIC has not gone to the lav by TOD, or hold on until landing there is bigger problems

[Lead Balloon]

121.535 provides for relief of the PIC, but it doesn’t explain how an FO or SO without an ATPL can be left in charge.Where is the “relief” - good pun by the way - from 91.635?

The PIC remains the PIC, even while being “relieved”.

[BuzzBox]

Where is the “relief” - good pun by the way - from 91.635?

The PIC remains the PIC, even while being “relieved”.

121.535 (2) or (3) allows the PIC to delegate the conduct of the flight to an appropriately qualified pilot who meets the specified requirements, no?

[Lead Balloon]

But the same person remains the PIC, nonetheless.

[Lead Balloon]

Hopefully we’ll be able to get ICUS weaved into this…

[Global Aviator]

Hopefully we’ll be able to get ICUS weaved into this…

I like it! In command under supervision while the supervisor is in the ****ter!

:ok:

[clark y]

I can't weave ICUS into this conversation but is Class E considered controlled airspace for an IFR flight?

[Buttscratcher]

Why do you care?
......do you really need written permission to take a piss now.

[Duck Pilot]

There are a lot more warts in the new ops regs, trust me as I spent 2 years with CASA writing the 91 and 135 regs!

I went into bat for common sense rules on many occasions and I was bowled out on many occasions, however I did have a little success. I got frustrated and moved on.

In CASA’s defence, it’s certainly not the people in CASA dictating how the new rules have been drafted, it’s the federal government lawyers. This is something that most people in industry don’t understand.

[Australopithecus]

You know, in Barcelona such deliberations are summed up: “ Pussy Boy”. Only, in their sibilance, it sounds like “puthy”. Be guided accordingly.

[Bug Smasher Smasher]

121.535 (2) or (3) allows the PIC to delegate the conduct of the flight to an appropriately qualified pilot who meets the specified requirements, no?
How many FOs on domestic operations have ATPLs?

[Lead Balloon]

Why do you care?
......do you really need written permission to take a piss now.You’ve nailed the solution: Apply to CASA for an exemption from 91.635.

[BuzzBox]

How many FOs on domestic operations have ATPLs?

As I said in a previous comment: "121.535 provides for relief of the PIC, but it doesn’'t explain how an FO or SO without an ATPL can be left in charge."

Hopefully, common sense would prevail, but I'm not sure such a thing exists in CASA's world of 'strict liability'.

[machtuk]

Here's another twist to this lunacy. PIC goes incap, dead at the steering wheel! F/O assumes command (obviously) but during the aftermath of securing the skippers body in his seat with the help of some 25 yr old FA who is beside herself thinking they are all gunna die the F/O due to the high levels of stress now needs to go take a dump himself, he's ****ting himself anyway, who assumes command now never lone the bull**** R/T rules? -)

[Duck Pilot]

Leadie, CASA will not issue exemptions against the new rules - I have tried however CASA will no longer entertain exemptions based on the recent feedback that I have received from CASA.

[Lead Balloon]

Leadie, CASA will not issue exemptions against the new rules - I have tried however CASA will no longer entertain exemptions based on the recent feedback that I have received from CASA.Just goes to show they’re living on another planet. The ‘new rules’ are **** and will require many exemptions to enable operations in the real world.

This looks very much like a very recent exemption against a new rule: https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2021L00196.

As does this one: https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2021L00532.

And this one as well: https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2020L01248.

And most of the rest of the page of search results I have in front of me…

[Buttscratcher]

As I said in a previous comment: "121.535 provides for relief of the PIC, but it doesn’'t explain how an FO or SO without an ATPL can be left in charge."

Hopefully, common sense would prevail, but I'm not sure such a thing exists in CASA's world of 'strict liability'.

I think your Company Docs, such as the FAM, will provide the 'relief' you require

[Lead Balloon]

Where do the ‘new rules’ provide relief if your ‘Company Docs’ provide for it? The number of the regulation, please.

[Paragraph377]

Leadie, CASA will not issue exemptions against the new rules - I have tried however CASA will no longer entertain exemptions based on the recent feedback that I have received from CASA.
Perhaps you can apply for a job with the ‘R’egulator and personally influence the necessary changes, Quack Pilot?

https://www.casa.gov.au/about-us/careers-casa

[Car RAMROD]

Leadie, CASA will not issue exemptions against the new rules - I have tried however CASA will no longer entertain exemptions based on the recent feedback that I have received from CASA.

That was exactly the same with the fatigue rules.

But because so many operators were getting shafted, CASA now have a process to apply for minor variations to the prescriptive rules.

so, basically we are back to exemptions.

[Chris2303]

So there I was on a SYD-DRW flight cruising along quite happily in the FL3xx range when all of a sudden I feel the call of nature.

My FO, being only a CPL, can't fly the ship by himself (according to the red tape) so we divert to BNE for me to avail myself of the facilities.

Do that often enough and the problem will be fixed sooner than you can say "It's all the fault of the regulator"

[Lead Balloon]

That was exactly the same with the fatigue rules.

But because so many operators were getting shafted, CASA now have a process to apply for minor variations to the prescriptive rules.

so, basically we are back to exemptions.And let me guess: They’ve wangled it so that the “minor variations” don’t have to be published and tabled, so we won’t know who’s getting what?

Back to behind closed doors favouritism (which is exactly why CASA was made to publish and table exemptions in the first place).

[Roj approved]

And let me guess: They’ve wangled it so that the “minor variations” don’t have to be published and tabled, so we won’t know who’s getting what?

Back to behind closed doors favouritism (which is exactly why CASA was made to publish and table exemptions in the first place).

In the webinar they said “just because one operator gets a Variation, doesn’t mean another doing the same work can have the same”.

So, as you say, CASA playing favourites again.

[Buttscratcher]

Where do the ‘new rules’ provide relief if your ‘Company Docs’ provide for it? The number of the regulation, please.


Why would I give a ****?

[Car RAMROD]

Lead, Roj- yup totally correct.

But it won’t take too long for the info to spread around.

[Pinky the pilot]

All the above comments merely reinforce my admittedly somewhat jaundiced view that CASA really stands for #*@&s Against Sensible Aviation.

it’s the federal government lawyers.

I'll concede that point but the CASA bureaucracy still approve it. Which brings me to ask the old joke;

What's the difference between a Lawyer and a European Carp?

Answers on a postcard please.

[clark y]

Aren't the rules being rewritten to make them easier, more functional or has that finished and this mess is the result?

[Lead Balloon]

Aren't the rules being rewritten to make them easier, more functional or has that finished and this mess is the result?
According to CASA and the Queen’s Birthday gong-givers, the re-write was “completed” and “resolved” by Carmody a while ago.

Yep: You read that correctly.

The plan was never to replace the 1988 regulations with simple, outcomes-based and harmonised 1998 regulations that would render exemptions unnecessary.

Nope. The plan was always to spend 20 plus years and more than a couple of hundred millions dollars:

cutting some bits of the 1988 regulations out and making the remainder more complex
adding a couple of thousand pages of 1998 regulations, with the distribution of subject matters between the 1988 regulations and the 1998 regulations having no coherent or logical basis
adding a couple of thousand pages of manuals of standards, some of the provisions of which - get this: it’s pure regulatory genius - require compliance with the 1988 and 1998 regulations
keeping and adding to thousands of pages of Civil Aviation Orders and exemptions
abandoning the process and pretending the pile of regulatory **** left behind is a masterpiece.

Yep: That was the plan.

[jonkster]

They have released "Plain English Guides" for several areas. The plain english one to explain CAO48.1 I found to be more difficult to read than the actual CAO (that might be just me maybe but my eyes glazed over at the following plain english paragraphs:

An FDP commencing at 0900 allows a maximum FDP of 11 hours. This may be extended by 4 hours (to 15 hours) by use of an SDRP (in sleeping accommodation) of 4 hours. The first 4 hours of the SDRP can be reduced to 2 hours for the purpose of the ODP calculation. The 15 hour duty period is therefore deemed to be 13 hours (which is 1 hour in excess of 12).The subsequent minimum ODP required is 12 hours plus (1.5 *1) = 13.5 hours.

After 3 consecutive WOCL infringements, you must have an off-duty period over a local night. You are permitted to infringe the WOCL more than 3 times only in accordance with the early start provisions above.A duty that falls within any part of the WOCL means the WOCL is infringed

https://www.casa.gov.au/sites/default/files/plain-english-guide-for-fatigue-management-rules-interactive-version.pdf

I think the best idea is to not let your f'dup impinge on your wocl. :)

[Lead Balloon]

I always marvel at the thought and quality control processes that result in stuff like this:
› your previous FDP was less than 8 hours
› your new FDP is less than 8 hours in duration
› after the new FDP you will have no more than 1 subsequent FDP that is also of less than 8 hours duration.

[zanthrus]

Just don't bother reading ANY of these "regulations" and do whatever you like. F CASA! They are no longer relevant.

[Chris2303]

How does this square with the CX single pilot in the cruise thread in the other forum?

[Buttscratcher]

Just don't bother reading ANY of these "regulations" and do whatever you like. F CASA! They are no longer relevant.

Not too sure about that, champ, but y'all may want to take this up with your company if you feel so strongly.
Let them sort it out, it's their job.
We adhere to our manual suite.

[compressor stall]

IMNAL, however as I see it, it might be the company's job to get the manuals compliant, but the offence of strict liability in this case lies with solely the PIC - NOT the operator. Assuming you operate in the LHS, you're the one ponying up $8500 for the pee break.

[Buttscratcher]

If you're that convinced, then you need to take it up with your employer.
You could refuse sectors over 2 hours, and avoid drinking coffee.

Let's know how you go.

[compressor stall]

In case it’s not obvious this thread is not about me, nor my employer nor my willingness to fly.

It’s about industry collating inconsistencies in the new rules.

I witnessed Mr Carmody say - several years ago - say that the rules were coming out warts and all. They’d been dragging on for too long.

Pilots should be aware of the warts (and there are more). And understand what strict liability means

[Lead Balloon]

... Assuming you operate in the LHS, you're the one ponying up $8500 for the pee break.The pee break will now cost you $11,100. A penalty unit is now $222.

It’s all about safety, dontcha know.

[Buttscratcher]

Ah....sorry, CS.
It wasn't that obvious to me.
Now I get it. You're miffed that CASA are inconsistent with their former rulings, and evolving separately to the rest of the world.
A Galapagos Island of Aviation, if you will.
I, however, think that ship of fools sailed decades ago.

[Duck Pilot]

With regards to the new 48.1 requirements, I have heard from a reliable source that operators who haven’t elected to get on board will receive an unwanted notification if they haven’t got on board by the 30th!

[compressor stall]

Ah....sorry, CS.
It wasn't that obvious to me.
Now I get it. You're miffed that CASA are inconsistent with their former rulings, and evolving separately to the rest of the world.
A Galapagos Island of Aviation, if you will.
I, however, think that ship of fools sailed decades ago.

No, BS.

The move to the new ruleset is an attempt by the regulator to further harmonise with ICAO and a deliberate move away from the oft quoted Galapagos effect. If you fly EDTO you'd have seen that come in in 2015, as well as other changes since (fuel in 2019) and the obvious forthcoming.

[Buttscratcher]

......you lost me at EDTO.
That title in itself ****s me, and sums up my argument nicely.

[BuzzBox]

......you lost me at EDTO.
That title in itself ****s me...

Might I ask why?

[Buttscratcher]

Might I ask why?
....and this is exactly what I'm talking about.

[BuzzBox]

....and this is exactly what I'm talking about.

You could have just answered the damn question without the snarky attitude.

[ScepticalOptomist]

......you lost me at EDTO.
That title in itself ****s me, and sums up my argument nicely.

Change is hard for some.

[STLTH]

Can’t they just install a radio in the bog. And while they are at it, duplicates of the major instruments. A couple of video screens would fit surely. Could probably get a control yoke in as well. And some rudder pedals.


LMMFAO. I love it, I needed that laugh FOXXSTER, legend.

[gordonfvckingramsay]

With regards to the new 48.1 requirements, I have heard from a reliable source that operators who haven’t elected to get on board will receive an unwanted notification if they haven’t got on board by the 30th!

How is everyone’s company interpreting/applying their chosen appendix of 48.1? I am told there are some creative interpretations being fed to pilots already.

[Car RAMROD]

Let’s hear some of the interpretations!

I haven’t heard too many yet, mostly because people haven’t quite figured them out yet.

Watching eyes glaze over when talking the WOCL, or the delayed reporting, or the acclimatisation, is fun. Actually that’s probably my own eyes. The rules aren’t easy to decipher and follow. Tough ask for the people who have to manage it and teach the rest of us.

But yes, I believe Duck is correct. No manual submitted to CASA by the end of this month means no flying for you in July.

[Duck Pilot]

I’m sure every pilot will be able to fully comprehend it all, particularly with regards to changing between appendices during a single duty period. The 2 days of annual re-currency training, 28 day rosters and mandatory 6 days off within a rolling 28 day period are a few little land mines that some operators haven’t recognised yet.

Wash up is that most AOC holders will need to hire more pilots in order to remain compliant with the 48.1 regs.

[Car RAMROD]

I’m sure every pilot will be able to fully comprehend it all, particularly with regards to changing between appendices during a single duty period. The 2 days of annual re-currency training, 28 day rosters and mandatory 6 days off within a rolling 28 day period are a few little land mines that some operators haven’t recognised yet.

Wash up is that most AOC holders will need to hire more pilots in order to remain compliant with the 48.1 regs.


Interesting. I’ve heard a couple people mention training takes two days. Where are they getting that from?

CASA syllabus is only about 8 hours long, full day but that’s not two days.
And the regs don’t state that it needs to be annual. CAAP says the operator can stipulate the time period. Did their operator say recurrent is annual? And is their syllabus that big that it takes 2 days?
”define fatigue” - “this course”.

[swh]

So you’re in the left seat from Sydney to Perth at FL380. Can you take a pee in the lav without either copping a $8500 dollar fine or descending OCTA?

Stallie, your weapon could reach the ground from FL380, just put your mask on and open the window, completely legal under the new rules. Problem solved. You are accustomed to a bit of frostbite.

Even if the PIC cant leave their seat whilst OCTA or whatever this is about. If the PIC has not gone to the lav by TOD, or hold on until landing there is bigger problems

Never seen it written in the rules anywhere around the world where the PIC needs to occupy a window/control seat.