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

The New rules interpretation thread.

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

The New rules interpretation thread.

Old 18th Jun 2021, 06:49
  #41 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Weltschmerz-By-The-Sea, Queensland, Australia
Posts: 1,028
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  
Old 18th Jun 2021, 07:16
  #42 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: M.I.A.
Posts: 189
Originally Posted by BuzzBox View Post
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  
Old 18th Jun 2021, 08:02
  #43 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 3,772
Originally Posted by Buttscratcher View Post
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  
Old 18th Jun 2021, 08:40
  #44 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Here & there
Posts: 816
Originally Posted by Bug Smasher Smasher View Post
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 online now  
Old 18th Jun 2021, 08:52
  #45 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 3
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 shitting himself anyway, who assumes command now never lone the bullshit R/T rules? -)
machtuk is offline  
Old 18th Jun 2021, 09:01
  #46 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Darwin and PNG
Age: 50
Posts: 1,170
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 offline  
Old 18th Jun 2021, 09:40
  #47 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 3,772
Originally Posted by Duck Pilot View Post
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 shit 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  
Old 18th Jun 2021, 09:41
  #48 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Mostly here, sometimes over there...
Posts: 287
Originally Posted by BuzzBox View Post
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  
Old 18th Jun 2021, 10:12
  #49 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 3,772
Where do the ‘new rules’ provide relief if your ‘Company Docs’ provide for it? The number of the regulation, please.
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 18th Jun 2021, 11:11
  #50 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: New Zealand
Age: 68
Posts: 284
Originally Posted by Duck Pilot View Post
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  
Old 18th Jun 2021, 11:20
  #51 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Vermont Hwy
Posts: 545
Originally Posted by Duck Pilot View Post
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  
Old 18th Jun 2021, 20:49
  #52 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posts: 782
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  
Old 19th Jun 2021, 00:04
  #53 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 3,772
Originally Posted by Car RAMROD View Post
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  
Old 19th Jun 2021, 00:19
  #54 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Australia the Awesome
Posts: 347
Originally Posted by Lead Balloon View Post
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  
Old 19th Jun 2021, 01:11
  #55 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Mostly here, sometimes over there...
Posts: 287
Originally Posted by Lead Balloon View Post
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 shit?
Buttscratcher is offline  
Old 19th Jun 2021, 09:18
  #56 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Vermont Hwy
Posts: 545
Lead, Roj- yup totally correct.

But it won’t take too long for the info to spread around.
Car RAMROD is offline  
Old 19th Jun 2021, 10:16
  #57 (permalink)  
Man Bilong Balus long PNG
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Now officially on Life's scrap heap, now being an Age Pensioner and not liking it one little bit! I'd rather be flying but in the meantime still continuing the never ending search for a bad bottle of Red!
Age: 67
Posts: 2,733
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 offline  
Old 19th Jun 2021, 22:08
  #58 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Posts: 289
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  
Old 20th Jun 2021, 02:02
  #59 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 3,772
Originally Posted by clark y View Post
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 shit left behind is a masterpiece.
Yep: That was the plan.

Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 20th Jun 2021, 02:18
  #60 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Sydney
Posts: 380
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  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.