CASA exemptions and how they relate to safety.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CASA exemptions and how they relate to safety.
Two "exemptions" came across my desk today and it makes one wonder if it is OK to exempt a rule, why was that rule there in the first place. Or is this just CASA doing favours for mates?
Maybe the road to regulatory reform lies in getting rid of what is deemed unnecessary by contemporary precedent.
This, the latest, highlights my point;
Miscellaneous Instrument CASA EX70/10
Instrument CASA EX70/10 (Exemption – from standard take-off minima – Jetstar) was registered on the Federal Register of Legislative Instruments on 7 September 2010 and comes into effect on 8 September 2010. This instrument applies to Airbus A320 and A321 aeroplanes operated by Jetstar Airways Pty Limited and states the minima for the aeroplanes as well as the conditions for their use.
These and other Miscellaneous Instruments can be viewed on the CASA website:
http://casa.gov.au/rules/miscinst/index.htm
Maybe the road to regulatory reform lies in getting rid of what is deemed unnecessary by contemporary precedent.
This, the latest, highlights my point;
Miscellaneous Instrument CASA EX70/10
Instrument CASA EX70/10 (Exemption – from standard take-off minima – Jetstar) was registered on the Federal Register of Legislative Instruments on 7 September 2010 and comes into effect on 8 September 2010. This instrument applies to Airbus A320 and A321 aeroplanes operated by Jetstar Airways Pty Limited and states the minima for the aeroplanes as well as the conditions for their use.
These and other Miscellaneous Instruments can be viewed on the CASA website:
http://casa.gov.au/rules/miscinst/index.htm
That and the fact that every other exemption seems to be for people to get on and off a chopper in flight and removing seatbelt below 1000 feet....
Can't this be an approval in an ops manual, not an exemption?
Can't this be an approval in an ops manual, not an exemption?
Frank, tks for the link to these CASA exemptions. There are a number that relate to exemptions from standard take-off and landing minima, not just Jetstar but also Air Mauritius, Air New Zealand, British Airways, Cargolux, Cathay Pacific, Emirates, Etihad, Express Freighters, Qantas Airways, Qatar Airways, Sinagpore Airlines (plus Cargo), United Airlines, V Australia, Vietnam Airlines and Virgin Blue.
CASA EX70/10 Exemption – from standard take-off minima – Jetstar
http://casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/lib91212/casaex70.pdf
CASA EX62/10 Exemption – from standard take-off and landing minima – Pacific Blue
http://http://casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_as...2/casaex62.pdf
Looking at the Jetstar exemption, Aerodrome minima for LVO, take-off minima, I’m not sure that CASA really understands aerodrome operations during LVO (nor airline ops for that matter).
Take-off minima with TDZ, MID and END measurements available for A320 and A321 aircraft are:
125 m RVR TDZ and 125 RVR MID and 125 m RVR END.
So far, so good, the three transmissometers are working for the runway being used and at least 125 m RVR exists at each of the points, TDZ, MID and END.
But if the MID and END are not available, then it all changes...
Take-off minima with TDZ and either MID or END measurements available for A320 and A321 aircraft are:
(a) 200 m RVR TDZ and 200 m RVR MID or, if MID is not available, then 200 m RVR END; and
(b) 350 m RV TDZ and 350 m RV MID or, if MID RV is not available, then 350 m RV END. For 350 m or greater RV TDZ, the pilot in command must act as the approved observer for the TDZ.
Okay, why is (a) and (b) linked by “and”.
Let’s assume that the TDZ and MID RVR are available but for some reason the END RVR is not available (equipment issue). RVR is 200 m (or 250 m) at TDZ and MID (and END is not reported). ATC aren’t going to send a safety officer to make RV assessments, that is, make a measurement of the visibility along the runway by counting a few runway lights.
And why must the pilot in command act as the approved observer for the TDZ when the RV is 350 m or greater when a safety officer is making the assessment a lower visibilities?
CASA EX70/10 Exemption – from standard take-off minima – Jetstar
http://casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/lib91212/casaex70.pdf
CASA EX62/10 Exemption – from standard take-off and landing minima – Pacific Blue
http://http://casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_as...2/casaex62.pdf
Looking at the Jetstar exemption, Aerodrome minima for LVO, take-off minima, I’m not sure that CASA really understands aerodrome operations during LVO (nor airline ops for that matter).
Take-off minima with TDZ, MID and END measurements available for A320 and A321 aircraft are:
125 m RVR TDZ and 125 RVR MID and 125 m RVR END.
So far, so good, the three transmissometers are working for the runway being used and at least 125 m RVR exists at each of the points, TDZ, MID and END.
But if the MID and END are not available, then it all changes...
Take-off minima with TDZ and either MID or END measurements available for A320 and A321 aircraft are:
(a) 200 m RVR TDZ and 200 m RVR MID or, if MID is not available, then 200 m RVR END; and
(b) 350 m RV TDZ and 350 m RV MID or, if MID RV is not available, then 350 m RV END. For 350 m or greater RV TDZ, the pilot in command must act as the approved observer for the TDZ.
Okay, why is (a) and (b) linked by “and”.
Let’s assume that the TDZ and MID RVR are available but for some reason the END RVR is not available (equipment issue). RVR is 200 m (or 250 m) at TDZ and MID (and END is not reported). ATC aren’t going to send a safety officer to make RV assessments, that is, make a measurement of the visibility along the runway by counting a few runway lights.
And why must the pilot in command act as the approved observer for the TDZ when the RV is 350 m or greater when a safety officer is making the assessment a lower visibilities?
Last edited by missy; 8th Sep 2010 at 11:03. Reason: typo
I'm sure CASA would be willing to give you an exemption too Frank if you had a suitably equipped 172 and met all the other requirements too 
The general rules are generic - if you meet the minimum (very general) standards required you meet the rule. But as a result they're conservative and have wider margins for error.
The exemptions say if you meet this stricter set of rules then you can narrow the margins.
The general rules are generic - if you meet the minimum (very general) standards required you meet the rule. But as a result they're conservative and have wider margins for error.
The exemptions say if you meet this stricter set of rules then you can narrow the margins.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The point I was making was that given the amount of "exemptions" that I see while sorting through the "chaffe to get to the wheat" it appears, in my humble opinion, that CASA regulates by exemptions rather than the strict application of the law. Something that is not afforded anyone who CASA get a "set on".
I'm unsure what the outcome was, but some time ago an endorsed bloke with a GFPT, was towing gliders and CASA said it wasn't to be. An exemption was sought and refused. Some meaning was lost with the introduction of the GFPT from the RPL. I understand you can now tow a glider in an ultralight.
Would that exemption be granted today, or has the law changed to facilitate this, (in a C172 for arguements sake).
RA-Aus only operate because of exemptions. Ten thousand pilots represents a sizeable chunk of the the flying community, yet they have a certificate, not a licence, as was promised earlier on with the recreational pilot Licence. From memory the new RPL (recreational),was to operate like the old RPL (Restricted), so people could fly C172's around the patch and tow gliders.
I'm unsure what the outcome was, but some time ago an endorsed bloke with a GFPT, was towing gliders and CASA said it wasn't to be. An exemption was sought and refused. Some meaning was lost with the introduction of the GFPT from the RPL. I understand you can now tow a glider in an ultralight.
Would that exemption be granted today, or has the law changed to facilitate this, (in a C172 for arguements sake).
RA-Aus only operate because of exemptions. Ten thousand pilots represents a sizeable chunk of the the flying community, yet they have a certificate, not a licence, as was promised earlier on with the recreational pilot Licence. From memory the new RPL (recreational),was to operate like the old RPL (Restricted), so people could fly C172's around the patch and tow gliders.
I'd have thought that having a set of general rules that apply to all, except for the exemptions to specific rules for specific operators was better than the alternative where everyone got their own set of individual rules. It's far easier to fall back to a known general default.
