Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific
Reload this Page >

The New rules interpretation thread.

Wikiposts
Search

Notices
Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific Airline and RPT Rumours & News in Australia, enZed and the Pacific

The New rules interpretation thread.

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 18th June 2021 | 06:49
  #41 (permalink)  
50 Countries Visited
10 Anniversary
 
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 1,396
Likes: 148
From: Weltschmerz-By-The-Sea Australia
You know, in Barcelona such deliberations are summed up: “ Pussy Boy”. Only, in their sibilance, it sounds like “puthy”. Be guided accordingly.
Australopithecus is offline  
Reply
Old 18th June 2021 | 07:16
  #42 (permalink)  
20 Anniversary
 
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 218
Likes: 28
From: M.I.A.
Originally Posted by BuzzBox
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?
Bug Smasher Smasher is offline  
Reply
Old 18th June 2021 | 08:02
  #43 (permalink)  
20 Anniversary
 
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,155
Likes: 1,265
From: Australia/India
Originally Posted by Buttscratcher
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.
Lead Balloon is offline  
Reply
Old 18th June 2021 | 08:40
  #44 (permalink)  
20 Anniversary
 
Joined: Mar 2002
Aviation Qualifications: ATP+Mil
Posts: 1,374
Likes: 285
From: Moved beyond
Originally Posted by Bug Smasher Smasher
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'.
BuzzBox is offline  
Reply
Old 18th June 2021 | 08:52
  #45 (permalink)  
 
Joined: Sep 2018
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
From: Melbourne
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? -)
machtuk is offline  
Reply
Old 18th June 2021 | 09:01
  #46 (permalink)  
20 Anniversary
 
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,707
Likes: 310
From: Australia
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.
Duck Pilot is online now  
Reply
Old 18th June 2021 | 09:40
  #47 (permalink)  
20 Anniversary
 
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,155
Likes: 1,265
From: Australia/India
Originally Posted by 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.
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…
Lead Balloon is offline  
Reply
Old 18th June 2021 | 09:41
  #48 (permalink)  
10 Anniversary
 
Joined: May 2013
Posts: 369
Likes: 99
From: Mostly here, sometimes over there...
Originally Posted by BuzzBox
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
Buttscratcher is offline  
Reply
Old 18th June 2021 | 10:12
  #49 (permalink)  
20 Anniversary
 
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,155
Likes: 1,265
From: Australia/India
Where do the ‘new rules’ provide relief if your ‘Company Docs’ provide for it? The number of the regulation, please.
Lead Balloon is offline  
Reply
Old 18th June 2021 | 11:11
  #50 (permalink)  
 
Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,475
Likes: 1
From: New Zealand
Originally Posted by 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.
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




Paragraph377 is offline  
Reply
Old 18th June 2021 | 11:20
  #51 (permalink)  
15 Anniversary
 
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 578
Likes: 21
From: Vermont Hwy
Originally Posted by 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.
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.
Car RAMROD is offline  
Reply
Old 18th June 2021 | 20:49
  #52 (permalink)  
15 Anniversary
 
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 138
Likes: 42
From: Waharoa, New Zealand
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"
Chris2303 is offline  
Reply
Old 19th June 2021 | 00:04
  #53 (permalink)  
20 Anniversary
 
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,155
Likes: 1,265
From: Australia/India
Originally Posted by Car RAMROD
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).
Lead Balloon is offline  
Reply
Old 19th June 2021 | 00:19
  #54 (permalink)  
 
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 399
Likes: 0
From: Australia the Awesome
Originally Posted by Lead Balloon
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.
Roj approved is offline  
Reply
Old 19th June 2021 | 01:11
  #55 (permalink)  
10 Anniversary
 
Joined: May 2013
Posts: 369
Likes: 99
From: Mostly here, sometimes over there...
Originally Posted by Lead Balloon
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 !!!!?
Buttscratcher is offline  
Reply
Old 19th June 2021 | 09:18
  #56 (permalink)  
15 Anniversary
 
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 578
Likes: 21
From: Vermont Hwy
Lead, Roj- yup totally correct.

But it won’t take too long for the info to spread around.
Car RAMROD is offline  
Reply
Old 19th June 2021 | 10:16
  #57 (permalink)  
Man Bilong Balus long PNG
20 Anniversary
 
Joined: Apr 2002
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 3,065
Likes: 222
From: Back home again after another fantastic time in Japan; once again back to the 'real world' and continuing the seemingly never ending search for a bad bottle of Red.
Devil

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.
Pinky the pilot is online now  
Reply
Old 19th June 2021 | 22:08
  #58 (permalink)  
15 Anniversary
 
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 318
Likes: 3
From: Oz
Aren't the rules being rewritten to make them easier, more functional or has that finished and this mess is the result?
clark y is offline  
Reply
Old 20th June 2021 | 02:02
  #59 (permalink)  
20 Anniversary
 
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,155
Likes: 1,265
From: Australia/India
Originally Posted by clark y
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.

Lead Balloon is offline  
Reply
Old 20th June 2021 | 02:18
  #60 (permalink)  
5 Anniversary
 
Joined: Feb 2017
Aviation Qualifications: CPL
Posts: 549
Likes: 193
From: Sydney
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/defaul...ve-version.pdf

I think the best idea is to not let your f'dup impinge on your wocl.
jonkster is offline  
Reply


Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.