Statement Of Expectations 13-1-2022

[Blueyonda]

SoE HERE (https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2022L00061/Html/Text)


https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/2000x203/e7dceef2_3d84_4719_8c2f_b259b69ab6d2_732a400b22308ccbcb16a3c 7b5b710e22928b07c.jpeg

Does anyone know if this has been done? In the lead up to the election, I could imagine it would be a good opportunity to take a rest, somewhat. I don’t think CASA works on a Sunday?

[Lead Balloon]

CASA did "seek to publish" and, alas, appears not to have found how to.

If anything is eventually published, my prediction is that it will say something like CASA was already taking measures to reduce, where appropriate, the regulatory burden on GA.

The 'expectation' is rendered practically meaningless by "where appropriate". That means whatever CASA decides is "appropriate". There is no external benchmark against which to measure that. (And the Minister won't do squat, anyway, if the 'expectation' isn't met.)

[triton140]

Not sure if it works like this for CASA, but where I came from the agency wrote the Statement of Expectations and then the Department had to negotiate any changes they wanted (not often successful, I might add).

So no surprise that there is plenty of wriggle room for CASA!

[compressor stall]

"seek to"
"committed to achieving..."

All weasel words with no accountability for not achieving it. Very common at this stage of the election cycle.

[A30_737_AEWC]

Spotted a news release today from SA Senator Rex Patrick in respect of the challenges being faced by General Aviation in Australia. In his proposal, he lays the gauntlet down to CASA.

A link and the text of his media release are provided below for information. I've no skin in the game, although I'm an interested bystander having worked around the periphery of the civil aviation sector in AU and have followed Glen Buckley's continuing attempts for open engagement with a system that, in some respects, isn't fit for purpose.

PLEDGE TO FORCE A SWITCH TO US REGULATIONS IN RESPONSE TO GENERAL AVIATION 'MAYDAY' CALL (https://www.rexpatrick.com.au/pledge_to_force_a_switch_to_us_regulations_in_response_to_ge neral_aviation_mayday_call)

1 May 2022

Independent Senator Rex Patrick has today pledged to introduce a Bill into the 47th Parliament that would require the Civil Aviation Safety Authority to abandon its complicated, overly duplicated and burdensome home-grown General Aviation regulations and, instead, switch to US Federal Aviation Authority regulations.

"CASA has crushed General Aviation in this country. It has taken the view that the best way to make sure there are no accidents in the skies over Australia is to ensure that it's overly burdensome and too costly to ever have an aircraft take off from a runway," Senator Patrick said.

"CASA has not listened to industry and they have not listened to the Parliament. Regulation of General Aviation should not equal destruction of General Aviation, and it’s now abundantly clear a broom needs to be put through the Authority. They have become a self-serving and destructive force in aviation in Australia".

Since 1995, when CASA was first established, there has been significant shrinkage in General Aviation across Australia. Bureau of Infrastructure and Transport Research Economics statistics on flying hours show massive declines as recently 2019 to 2020; Own use business flying down 24.3%, Instructional flying down 9.4%, Sports/pleasure flying down 25.8% and other flying down 28.1%.

"The industry has faced an unreasonable regulatory burden quite disproportionate to any benefit in safety outcomes. CASA basically treats small aircraft operators as though they are regular public transport operators like Qantas, Virgin and REX."

Areas of CASA over-regulation include:

Pilot Licensing and Category Rating (Civil Aviation Safety Regulation Part 61) - regulatory overreach which has decimated industry training.
Maintenance licensing (CASR Part 66) - duplicated and excessive regulations that have contributed to the downturn in the number of Licenced Aircraft Maintenance Engineers.
Flight medical examination (CASR Part 67) - regulatory overkill costing pilots $480 with bureaucrats, never having met the pilots, overturning doctors' recommendations.
Air Transport rules for smaller aeroplanes (CASR Part 135) - limits on number of seats.
Training organisation requirements (CASR Part 141 and 142) - A staggering amount of new regulations that have killed off flying schools.

"Regulations have been issued by CASA without safety cases to justify changes, without regard to cost and without proper regard to risk, noting the smaller sized aircraft found in General Aviation and fewer people being involved in accidents. Regulation in Australia has also failed to align with regulations in other jurisdictions, making it difficult for Australian pilots to operate overseas."

Senator Patrick said, "This disproportionate regulatory burden is being imposed in circumstances where costs in the industry are skyrocketing. Training, fuel, insurance, aircraft maintenance and security costs have all risen, along with airport access charges. It's a crushing load for the industry".

“Numerous reviews and inquiries have found CASA regulations to be over-the-top. A 2013 Aviation Safety Regulation Review found them to be overly legalistic, difficult to understand and too focused on punitive outcome. A 2018 study by Deloitte Access Economics found that the regulatory burdens have driven people away from the sector. A recent Senate Inquiry into General Aviation, chaired by Nationals senator Susan McDonald, was scathing of CASA and its over-regulation".

Senator Patrick said, "After the overzealous grounding of a transplant air service by CASA in 2018 and a full scale and completely unnecessary attack on Angel Flight the Parliament acted with a 2019 Civil Aviation Amendment Bill that sought to ensure that, in developing and promulgating aviation safety standards, CASA considers the economic and cost impact on individuals, businesses and the community and to take into account the differing risks associated with different industry sectors, such as General Aviation."

"Since that Bill passed, CASA has basically done nothing. I accept that the recently appointed CEO, Ms Pip Spence, has started to move things a little, but sadly she's flying around in the bureaucratic equivalent of a Tiger Moth when she needs to be in a strike-fighter jet fully armed with regulatory smashing bombs."

"Her nutcracker approach doesn’t seem to have cracked the over-regulation walnut so it’s time to reach for the sledgehammer."

If re-elected Senator Patrick will introduce the necessary sledgehammer in the form of the Civil Aviation (Regulation Transition Review). This Bill will require the Minister to conduct an independent review to examine how US Federal Aviation Authority regulations can be translated into the Australian context. The FAA regulatory regime offers a thorough but less burdensome regime to ensure safe and economically viable General Aviation operations. The review would not be tasked to re-invent the wheel, rather it would examine how the US wheel fits in the Australian context. The review would need to take submissions from stakeholders and its reports, including any interim reports, would have to be tabled in the Parliament."

"The outcome of the independent review would be the basis for a further Civil Aviation (Adaptation of FAA Regulations) Bill that will kill off CASA's General Aviation killing regulations and see a broom put through the Authority."

"CASA's regulatory impositions has been a systemic death by a thousand cuts for General Aviation. The industry has sent out a Mayday call and I'm going to respond to it."

[Vag277]

https://www.casa.gov.au/search-centre/corporate-plans/general-aviation-workplan?utm_source=Swift%20Digital&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Reg%20wrap-up

[Arm out the window]

From the workplan:
Industry has told us that the current pilot licensing rules are too complicated, and the availability of instructors and flight examiners causes bottlenecks. We are working on reforms focused on delivering tangible benefits to better support general aviation.

Some of the comments in the workplan summary sound somewhat promising (bearing in mind that words are cheap). It's particularly galling that all the feedback over years only now seems to be getting some traction, and for that, some senior CASA 'specialists' and managers should continue to be dismissed or pressured to leave.

One example that's been communicated to CASA loud and clear ever since Part 61 took effect is the shortcomings of the specialist pilot training route under the CASRs, particularly contributing to the lack of experienced examiners for things like mustering, fire and NVG work. There is no excuse for having not listened and comprehended the ramifications years ago. We can only hope that there are cracks in the impenetrable wall of face-saving now that will actually lead to that oft-abused term, transparency.

[Lead Balloon]

Great work if you can get it, eh? Spend years on a six figure salary creating complexity that everyone said was going to lead to mess, then spend years on a six figure salary working on “reforms” to deal with the mess.

It's a self-licking ice-cream.

[Chronic Snoozer]

Yes, Minister.

[Sunfish]

Related to the SoE is the account of the Board meeting:

https://www.casa.gov.au/about-us/who-we-are/our-board/our-board-meeting-28-april-2022

While this document sounds like a refined afternoon tea party, I hope that there was more to it than that.

While it has been pointed out that the CASA Board is not a "real" Board in the sense of a public company Board, I would like to think it takes its duties just as seriously.

That means that no matter how politely it is done, the DAS's no doubt dainty feet are held to the blow torch.

The Board should be asking penetrating questions and expecting concise answers as to the subject of managing risk - which is the Boards duty.. If over time, the answers provided by the DAS do not suggest an appreciation of this little matter, then the Board should be looking for a new DAS.

Questions that I would be asking:

Considering the question of CASA's reputation and occasional adverse findings, how do you propose to manage it? Could you perhaps comment on the matter of Buckley and similar events as examples of reputational risk?

While this is a Board matter, Considering Government policy in toto, how should CASA support it? is our policy aligned with Government objectives? Are there any changes to The Act or policies you would recommend? Why?

Do you have sufficient resources to execute the approved business plan?

Are there any matters not mentioned in the minutes that we, as Board, should be aware of?

[Lead Balloon]

I like it how you are able to swing from realistic sceptic to wide-eyed Pollyanna with little effort, Sunfish. "I hope." "I would like to think."

CASA isn't a company trying to make a profit. CASA doesn't exist for or to help the aviation industry. CASA exists to save the public from the aviation industry. CASA couldn't care less about its reputation in the aviation industry, other than to pay lip service.

Why on Earth would any member of the CASA Board want to make stressful or embarrassing work out of Board meetings? Mutual back-slapping is far more relaxing.

Are you able to identify a single Commonwealth statutory authority where the Board has sacked the CEO? Ever in history.

[Sunfish]

Lead Balloon, Pollyanna indeed! More like Aunty Jack with Blundstones.

I was being perlite as I were dragged up to be.

A good board may contain characters who call a spade a spade. It may also contain members who hand you your head on a plate before you even realize its been cut off.

As I said " I would like to think" out of respect for the Board, it's Chairman and members, because its not an easy job, despite what you may think.

Sacked Commonwealth Authority CEO's? Of course not. CEO's "resigned to pursue other opportunities" ? That is a different matter.

[Lead Balloon]

I've have been on a few boards. I'm on one now. And I do have some first-hand insights into the way in which the boards of Commonwealth statutory authorities work.

Can you nominate any CEO of any Commonwealth statutory authority who's ever "resigned to pursue other opportunities". Mark Skidmore bailed out early, not because of any pressure put on him to jump by the CASA Board or Minister, but rather because he quickly worked out what a sh*t show he'd inherited and that sacrificing his sanity and reputation weren't worth the pieces of silver.

[Arm out the window]

but rather because he quickly worked out what a sh*t show he'd inherited and that sacrificing his sanity and reputation weren't worth the pieces of silver.

That's very disappointing, if true. If the CEO can't fix it, and the board and senate and minister can't fix it, who the hell can?

It would have been a great opportunity for someone with some direct aviation knowledge to open the can of worms, suss out who the real roadblocks were/are, and make a few big decisions. I would have thought that would be an excellent reputation enhancer!. Much better to be known as the bloke who saw a big problem in a government agency and got stuck into it, rather than put the rock back down and walked away.

Possibly not that simple, but future job prospects or financial worries wouldn't have been an issue surely.

[Lead Balloon]

Give Skates a ring and ask him.

To ‘fix’ CASA, the legislation has to be fixed. That starts with the Civil Aviation Act. Neither the Board nor the CEO has any power to change the Act.

You might have heard reference to the ‘Iron Ring’ as if it’s a bunch of people. The ‘Iron Ring’ is, in fact, the Civil Aviation Act and all of the legislation that says what CASA’s job is and how it is to be done. Unless and until that changes, CASA will continue creating endless complexity. It keeps getting paid hundreds of millions of dollars every year to do it.

(There are plenty of people in CASA ready and willing to apply the Iron Ring to newbie CEOs and Chairman of the CASA Board. I call it the ‘straightjacket’ rather than the Iron Ring, because the former is an allusion to a lunatic asylum and that’s more apt.)

The Parliament can fix it. The Parliament created CASA and the Parliament decides what CASA’s powers and functions are, and the way in which they are to be exercised and performed. That’s one of the primary points of the Civil Aviation Act.

The Minister isn’t the Parliament, but the Minister can introduce legislation to amend the Civil Aviation Act, as can Senators. So far, those amendments have changed little in substance. That (along with the hundreds of millions each year) tells CASA that so far as the Parliament is concerned, CASA’s doing a great job.

[Arm out the window]

Give Skates a ring and ask him. I had bit to do with him in RAAF days and respected him. I don't have his contact details but would like to talk to him about it at some point.

I don't agree that the overarching legislation is where the core problem lies. I think different middle and senior managers working with honest good intentions could, and should have, at numerous times over the past twenty plus years of reg 'development', put a stop to over-complication and drawn-out talk fests by moving some self-serving empire builders out of their positions of influence and making ease of comprehension and application to real-world situations a requirement for any rules or policy output.

The buck-passing just keeps going on. What we need is:

1. Operator-level rules that are clear, concise and appropriate - sounds familiar, doesn't it. What we have is a barely comprehensible cluster. The more wishy-washy a rule is, the more it's open to interpretation. Who interprets? A 'guidance centre', which is just a smokescreen for the opinion of the flight and airworthiness standards person who gets the question on the day, or inspectors either assessing or auditing, who are probably just as confused as industry.

2. Less bureacratic top-heaviness and white noise, more focus and understanding on what it's like to be running or working in an aviation business, or flying a private aircraft, and genuine determination to help aviation thrive. Of course this ties in with a stripped-down, clear rule set, so everyone knows what they're supposed to be doing and the well-intentioned majority can get on with it, while the less scrupulous won't have as much cover to duck and weave.

I reckon, and this is of course just me shooting my mouth off on the internet, any simple reg set from the ones commonly quoted could be adopted and be better than what we have now. Their would be some initial pain and and angst about legal matters under the Australian legal system, but it would still be better than the current debacle. Right now, most operators are probably not compliant with the CASRs, because nobody really knows what the CASRs actually mean. There's also a Clayton's transition period of a couple of years when the regs are already in legal effect, so good luck taking anything to court at the moment - who's going to know what the law actually means?

Anyway, rant over for the moment.

[Chronic Snoozer]

You know regulations are badly written when it requires a 'plain English' guide to explain them. Just write stuff in layman's terms, in one place, that everyone can use, not just lawyers. Even AIP, which is supposed to distill the essential requirements like alternate planning into a useable form, is a buggers muddle.

[aroa]

AOTW.. the quote from LB is true. Skidmark made it out the door because he had enough integrity to leave.
No one else has abandoned that sort of money, He had the courage of his convictions that CAsA was then, and still is THE ultimate sh*t show.
Many people have written to the Bored, without so much as a response. Some have tried for an appointment to address. Might as well go to the quarry and talk to the rock wall, and listen. At least the silence there may therapeutic for you.

[Arm out the window]

No one else has abandoned that sort of money - the money probably wouldn't have been a massive issue seeing as his military pension entitlements as an AVM would be right up there. Assuming he dug deep enough to satisfy himself it was indeed a **** show, then leaving doesn't sound like a particularly courageous act.

Not having a go at him personally, just the idea that having taken on a job and seen the reality of it, I would think the 'do the right thing' options would be to either go hard to fix it, or if choosing to leave, disclose frankly to the responsible politicians and taxpaying public exactly what you found wanting, in order to generate some proper focus and action by someone else.

What could possibly be gained by just leaving without blowing the lid off it as best you could? Whose face-saving is more important than fixing a broken system?

[aroa]

Maybe yre right. Maybe he just figured that life is short and there are more enjoyable things to do than get worn out and bogged down the the sh* t heap for years battling for a positive result.
Look at the great benefits and changes for GA as a result of McComic and Carbody ant etc.Nix ,Nil. SFA.

[Chronic Snoozer]

Surely someone does due diligence on the job before accepting it? That's the nature of the task and you should be fully aware of the issues industry has with CASA from the outset. Presumably Pip Spence knew what she was getting into?

[aroa]

One would think so. But in the alien universe of Cantbeera, for bureaurats its all about moving up the food chain level for a bigger ice cream cone. Don’t have to know JS about or had any experience in Aviation, think of the remuneration.

[Sandy Reith]

Going back to what might cure the CASA disaster, AOTW is of course correct to call for reforms as points 1. and 2. but unfortunately a 34 year history of worse and worse is proof that the model of an independent Commonwealth corporate instead of Department with responsible Minister at its head cannot work. The Westminster system is a system of government that has stood the test of time. If someone can show a better model then fine let’s see it. Not to say we can’t improve but the only sensible way forward is to grow from what we know works.

Surely it’s abundantly clear by now that lack of political direction and a free for all CASA make work program, complete with a catch all ‘safety above all’ excuse for the most stupendous, complex and unworkable rules can’t be changed from within. Too much money in salaries for one thing and the vague Statement of Expectations as an almost useless document of guidance.

[Arm out the window]

Yes, Sandy, it certainly has not worked. I just wonder even if there was a direct minister / department setup, they'd be capable of digging into the veils of secrecy and bull**** to properly purge the place and set up something that works. Seems like any time an enquiry or controversy comes along, there's a lot of talk and then it just goes back to ops normal. That's why I think a tenacious informed director who won't accept being lied to is a must. Don't know if such a person exists though.

[Sandy Reith]

It’s very important for us to have a common and principal request to government, that is, that we ask government to assume control of the administration of Australia’s aviation regulation.

We must have ‘expectations’ of a far improved system and it’s only through a Minister with a Department can this happen. To make that happen there will have to be an Act of Parliament.

Talk of some super hero who takes charge of CASA, changes the ‘culture,’ and makes the sweeping changes that we all wish to see is wishful thinking.

The only way to change ‘culture,’ whatever that means to different people, is to change the rules. As the old adage has it, grab them…handcuffs?.. and their hearts and minds will follow. You don’t go along to to any bureaucracy and say “please be nice” and think all will be well. The settings of power through our democratic institutions have taken a few hundred years to evolve and we’ve nothing better to date, this is a learned system that works by accounting for human nature.

We have to work at it. My thinking is we need to engage, to a much greater degree, with our MPs who are paid to represent us, the constituents. Ask them questions such as do you support reform for General Aviation? Protest at unreasonable medical examination requirements, etc. I speak to mine whenever presented with an opportunity and write reasonably often.

[Arm out the window]

What would change in the Act, though? Section 9A already requires consideration of economic impact etc, and is (rightly in my view) subject to the requirement that safety of air navigation is the most important aspect. I doubt you'd get that written much differently no matter who was pushing the agenda.

The real problem is getting those broad statements of intent, which are really what law is as far as I can tell, translated into stuff that really works for the aviating public and industry. By all means, if a minister can make that happen, bring it on, but I can't see it happening when no minister can really be expected to give too much attention to anything that's not going to directly keep them and their party in the job.

That's why I talk about someone closer to the coal face with integrity being needed (and I use the term somewhat loosely of course seeing as they're not really down in the weeds). I reckon Mark Skidmore should have been way more publicly vocal and active. None of the others in recent times have had the background or inclination to do anything of value, but rather have been content to take the money and talk themselves up.

[Clinton McKenzie]

AOTW: Imagine the State X highway patrol was given the function of setting clear and concise road transport safety standards and given the power to set the speed limit. A section of the legislation creating this hypothetical highway patrol says that in performing its functions and exercising its powers: “The safety of road transport is the most important consideration.”

What would you expect to happen to speed limits?

The legislature in this hypothetical wakes up one day and decides it is concerned that ever-reducing speed limits are having an effect that is disproportionate to the reduction in the road toll. As a solution, the legislature changes the State X highway patrol Act so that the economic consequences of the transport safety standards set by the highway patrol, and the speed limits it sets, are a relevant consideration. But the safety of road transport remains the most important consideration.

What do you really believe the State X highway patrol will do differently? How is it that you think the State X highway patrol will measure the economic consequences of the reduced speed limits it sets and then decide whether those consequences are or are not worth paying in order to avoid a road death?

Standards enforcement is a regulatory process.

Standards setting is a political process: How much is society willing to pay in order to mitigate a risk? Although pollies would prefer to avoid responsibility for those decisions, by abdicating them to ‘someone else’, the outcome is an inexorable trend in only one direction. (That’s why the pollies eventually had little choice but to take back responsibility, from medical bureaucrats, the abdicated responsibility for the various ‘lockdown’ and isolation restrictions for Covid 19. The medical bureaucracy would be happy to dictate our living and travel arrangements and vaccinations indefinitely, in “the interests of medical safety”.)

The current Civil Aviation Act makes CASA responsible for political decisions that it is not competent to make, taking into consideration costs it is not competent to measure. That’s one of the primary reasons for the complex, convoluted and ever-growing dog’s breakfast of aviation regulations imposed in Australia.

Changing the legislation is part of the solution to the problem (assuming it to be a problem). Standards setting and speed limit decisions shouldn’t be CASA’s to make in the first place. The opinions of the regulator (assuming it has the technical competence) should be merely one consideration in those decisions.

[Arm out the window]

I get your drift, Clinton. It would certainly be far better if CASA didn't effectively have the power to set standards and limits as they do now, even though the Governor General signs the CASRs into law and they are tabled in parliament, if I understand correctly.

That's where a big part of the problem lies - every lawmaker knows about speed limits and road rules, but very few of them would have a clue about the ramifications of various parts of CASRs. They just get waved in front of politicians' faces and accepted without a whimper, as far as I know.

If CASA wasn't the standard setter, wouldn't you have to create some other so-called expert body to do that part, thereby creating even more bureacracy and red tape? I fully agree CASA is dysfunctional, and taking the standard setting role away from it makes great sense in that context, but who then drafts the rules and confirms they are fit for purpose? I don't know the answer, but I don't think it's as straighforward as road rules.

[Sunfish]

AOTW, its perfectly straight forward. Whoever writes the rules doesn't get to investigate apparent breaches, apply administrative penalties or recommend prosecution. At present CASA is judge, jury and executioner rolled into one. That must stop.
BTW there is also the question of rewriting the rules in plain English for example:


ROAD SAFETY ROAD RULES 2017 - REG 72Giving way at an intersection (except a T‑intersection or roundabout) (1) A driver (http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_reg/rsrr2017208/s219.html#driver) at an intersection (http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_reg/rsrr2017208/s231.html#intersection) (except a T-intersection or roundabout (http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_reg/rsrr2017208/s109.html#roundabout)) must give way (http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_reg/rsrr2017208/s87.html#give_way) in accordance with (http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_reg/rsrr2017208/s317.html#with) this rule if the intersection (http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_reg/rsrr2017208/s231.html#intersection) is without (http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_reg/rsrr2017208/s317.html#with) all of the following—

(a) traffic lights;

(b) stop (http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_reg/rsrr2017208/s350.html#stop) sign ;

(c) stop (http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_reg/rsrr2017208/s350.html#stop) line;

(d) give way (http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_reg/rsrr2017208/s87.html#give_way) sign ;

(e) give way line (http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_reg/rsrr2017208/s73.html#give_way_line).

Penalty: 5 penalty units.

Notes

1 "Give way line", intersection (http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_reg/rsrr2017208/s231.html#intersection) , stop (http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_reg/rsrr2017208/s350.html#stop) line , T-intersection and traffic lights are defined in the dictionary. Roundabout (http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_reg/rsrr2017208/s109.html#roundabout) is defined in rule 109. (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_reg/rsrr2017208/s109.html)

2 For this rule, "give way" means the driver (http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_reg/rsrr2017208/s219.html#driver) must slow down and, if necessary, stop (http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_reg/rsrr2017208/s350.html#stop) to avoid a collision—see the definition in the dictionary.

(2) If the driver (http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_reg/rsrr2017208/s219.html#driver) is going straight ahead (http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_reg/rsrr2017208/s75.html#straight_ahead), the driver (http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_reg/rsrr2017208/s219.html#driver) must give way (http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_reg/rsrr2017208/s87.html#give_way) to any vehicle (http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_reg/rsrr2017208/s211.html#vehicle) approaching (http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_reg/rsrr2017208/s79a.html#approaching) from the right (http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_reg/rsrr2017208/s45.html#right), unless a stop (http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_reg/rsrr2017208/s350.html#stop) sign, stop (http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_reg/rsrr2017208/s350.html#stop) line, give way (http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_reg/rsrr2017208/s87.html#give_way) sign or give way line (http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_reg/rsrr2017208/s73.html#give_way_line) applies to the driver (http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_reg/rsrr2017208/s219.html#driver) of the approaching (http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_reg/rsrr2017208/s79a.html#approaching) vehicle (http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_reg/rsrr2017208/s211.html#vehicle).

Note Straight ahead (http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_reg/rsrr2017208/s75.html#straight_ahead) is defined in the dictionary.




how CASA would write this:ROAD SAFETY ROAD RULES 2017 - REG 72Giving way at an intersection (except a T‑intersection or roundabout)

(1) A driver (http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_reg/rsrr2017208/s219.html#driver) of a vehicle must not enter or cross an intersection unless in accordance with clause (a) to (b).

(a) there are no traffic lights, and,

(i)) there are no stop signs, or

(ii) there are no stop lines, or

(iii) there are no give way signs, or

(iv) there are no give way lines, and

(v) there are no vehicles on the drivers right hand that would be required to alter speed or alter course to avoid the drivers vehicle.

(b) There are traffic lights and the appropriate traffic light is:

(i) Not red, or

(ii) Not yellow.
Penalty 50 penalty units.

An offence under this regulation is an offence of strict liability.

For the definition of an intersection see MOS page 4527

[triadic]

Part of the "problem" is that CASA is really CARA as it applies to regulation and not safety. I am advised that many organisations that have safety in their name actually do not promote safety.
Those of us that have been around for a while know that the regs etc are written to keep the AG's dept happy and in their required format regardless of the practicability of same. You would think that the phrase about strict liability could be covered off in some over riding introduction(?) and not take up space multiple times thru the body of the document.

[Clinton McKenzie]

triadic said: You would think that the phrase about strict liability could be covered off in some over riding introduction(?) and not take up space multiple times thru the body of the document.The notes at least should all be removed.

Drafting Direction No. 3.5 of the Office of Parliamentary Counsel (https://www.opc.gov.au/sites/default/files/s06pf330.v57.pdf) says, with my underlining:

Notes about strict and absolute liability

17 Previously it has been common to include notes under strict liability offences and absolute liability offences referring to section 6.1 of the Criminal Code. For example:

Note: For strict liability, see section 6.1 of the Criminal Code.

18 These notes must not be included in new offence provisions and should, wherever practicable, be removed from existing offence provisions.One wonders how long it will take before the drafting brains trust finally also concedes that it’s not legally necessary to put a penalty at the foot of each and every offence provision that has the same penalty.

AOTW said: That's where a big part of the problem lies - every lawmaker knows about speed limits and road rules, but very few of them would have a clue about the ramifications of various parts of CASRs.More should do their job and get a clue. Much damage is done behind the smokescreen created by the ‘mystique of aviation’.