The New rules interpretation thread.
You know, in Barcelona such deliberations are summed up: “ Pussy Boy”. Only, in their sibilance, it sounds like “puthy”. Be guided accordingly.
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'.
Hopefully, common sense would prevail, but I'm not sure such a thing exists in CASA's world of 'strict liability'.
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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? -)
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.
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…
I think your Company Docs, such as the FAM, will provide the 'relief' you require
Where do the ‘new rules’ provide relief if your ‘Company Docs’ provide for it? The number of the regulation, please.
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: New Zealand
Age: 71
Posts: 1,475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
https://www.casa.gov.au/about-us/careers-casa
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.
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"
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"
Back to behind closed doors favouritism (which is exactly why CASA was made to publish and table exemptions in the first place).
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).
Back to behind closed doors favouritism (which is exactly why CASA was made to publish and table exemptions in the first place).
So, as you say, CASA playing favourites again.
Man Bilong Balus long PNG
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Looking forward to returning to Japan soon but in the meantime continuing the never ending search for a bad bottle of Red!
Age: 69
Posts: 2,967
Received 93 Likes
on
54 Posts
All the above comments merely reinforce my admittedly somewhat jaundiced view that CASA really stands for #*@&s Against Sensible Aviation.
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.
it’s the federal government lawyers.
What's the difference between a Lawyer and a European Carp?
Answers on a postcard please.
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.
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:
https://www.casa.gov.au/sites/defaul...ve-version.pdf
I think the best idea is to not let your f'dup impinge on your wocl.
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
I think the best idea is to not let your f'dup impinge on your wocl.