Regulator management of the CASR's
Thread Starter
Regulator management of the CASR's
I believe most will agree that reading and comprehending the parts of the CASRs is an extremely laborious exercise. For all intent and proposes, the format for Aviators has low intrinsic value. In my opinion, the current format should be reserved for the legal fraternity however, for the majority of end users an interactive digital platform would be far easier, efficient and effective to use than wading through scrolls of complex, convoluted legal script.
This is the concept, the user accesses a CASA Website or Application, performs a topic search (via a choice of methods), the APP/Program generates a multitude of YES/NO questions which ultimately provides the answer. Expressing it in another way, a program that converts all the parts of the CASRs into a series of digital flow charts. As I understand, programs are based on rules so I don't think it would be very difficult to convert the CASR's into software code. Given the sophistication of programming tools and tools like AI, it probably isn't that difficult or time consuming to achieve (for an organisation that has the resources of CASA)
Worthy or unworthy idea (just post a Yes or a No)? Do you have any IT knowledge to explain why such a concept would or wouldn't be workable?
This is the concept, the user accesses a CASA Website or Application, performs a topic search (via a choice of methods), the APP/Program generates a multitude of YES/NO questions which ultimately provides the answer. Expressing it in another way, a program that converts all the parts of the CASRs into a series of digital flow charts. As I understand, programs are based on rules so I don't think it would be very difficult to convert the CASR's into software code. Given the sophistication of programming tools and tools like AI, it probably isn't that difficult or time consuming to achieve (for an organisation that has the resources of CASA)
Worthy or unworthy idea (just post a Yes or a No)? Do you have any IT knowledge to explain why such a concept would or wouldn't be workable?
don't put the fox in charge of another chicken coup.
While I agree that the present set of CASRs is written in a way that is legalistic and often difficult to interpret, you are surely joking if you are suggesting the same mob should take on yet another writing role. It would take CASA a hundred years, and the result would be no better.
Seabreeze
Seabreeze
Some CASRs have a plain English guide.
But FWIW I did the following to get my head around the regs:
Took all relevant CASRs and imported into adobe pro.
Removed the indexes
Cropped all pages to remove headers and footers
Copy all and paste into excel *
Then you have a multi thousand line excel doc with each sub reg per line.
Export to PDF and easily searchable.
*The tables don’t copy and paste well, you need a couple of mins frigging with them
But FWIW I did the following to get my head around the regs:
Took all relevant CASRs and imported into adobe pro.
Removed the indexes
Cropped all pages to remove headers and footers
Copy all and paste into excel *
Then you have a multi thousand line excel doc with each sub reg per line.
Export to PDF and easily searchable.
*The tables don’t copy and paste well, you need a couple of mins frigging with them
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: Australia
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not only the CASRs but the entire library of law books is a mess for the end user.
CASA don’t need to do anything new here:
The VFRG should simply be expanded or have additional volumes to cover all ops thus providing a quick reference guide for all pilots/operators. The online digital platform is already there and provides a sufficient service.
CASA don’t need to do anything new here:
The VFRG should simply be expanded or have additional volumes to cover all ops thus providing a quick reference guide for all pilots/operators. The online digital platform is already there and provides a sufficient service.
the viability of setting up the CASR's into a logic tree would depend on the the CASR's being consistently logical.
1. You must demonstrate how to enter and recover from an incipient spin as a unit of competency to attain a SEA type rating (eg a PPL)
(and incipient spins are spins that haven't stabilised - many aircraft will require multiple turns to move from incipient spin to stable spin)
2. You must not deliberately spin an aircraft that is not certified for spinning (most ab initio GA training aircraft)
3. Therefore you cannot teach students to PPL standard solely in aircraft that cannot be spun (eg warrior, 152/172, DA40, etc)
OR
1. Grade 3 instructors cannot conduct a flight review
2. Grade 3 instructors with a DFE can issue a DF Endorsement
3. A DFE counts as a flight review
4. Therefore a Grade 3 instructor can issue a flight review. But not conduct one.
OR
1. a PPL can hold a DFE instructor rating and conduct DFE training.
2. DFE training can be done outside of part 141, 142
3. non 141,142 instructing is classified as a private operation
4. Therefore a PPL can receive payment for instructing (if it is towards a DFE).
5. Also a DFE counts as a Flight Review
6. Therefore a PPL can issue a flight review. But not conduct one.
1. You must demonstrate how to enter and recover from an incipient spin as a unit of competency to attain a SEA type rating (eg a PPL)
(and incipient spins are spins that haven't stabilised - many aircraft will require multiple turns to move from incipient spin to stable spin)
2. You must not deliberately spin an aircraft that is not certified for spinning (most ab initio GA training aircraft)
3. Therefore you cannot teach students to PPL standard solely in aircraft that cannot be spun (eg warrior, 152/172, DA40, etc)
OR
1. Grade 3 instructors cannot conduct a flight review
2. Grade 3 instructors with a DFE can issue a DF Endorsement
3. A DFE counts as a flight review
4. Therefore a Grade 3 instructor can issue a flight review. But not conduct one.
OR
1. a PPL can hold a DFE instructor rating and conduct DFE training.
2. DFE training can be done outside of part 141, 142
3. non 141,142 instructing is classified as a private operation
4. Therefore a PPL can receive payment for instructing (if it is towards a DFE).
5. Also a DFE counts as a Flight Review
6. Therefore a PPL can issue a flight review. But not conduct one.
the viability of setting up the CASR's into a logic tree would depend on the the CASR's being consistently logical.
1. You must demonstrate how to enter and recover from an incipient spin as a unit of competency to attain a SEA type rating (eg a PPL)
(and incipient spins are spins that haven't stabilised - many aircraft will require multiple turns to move from incipient spin to stable spin)
2. You must not deliberately spin an aircraft that is not certified for spinning (most ab initio GA training aircraft)
3. Therefore you cannot teach students to PPL standard solely in aircraft that cannot be spun (eg warrior, 152/172, DA40, etc)
OR
1. Grade 3 instructors cannot conduct a flight review
2. Grade 3 instructors with a DFE can issue a DF Endorsement
3. A DFE counts as a flight review
4. Therefore a Grade 3 instructor can issue a flight review. But not conduct one.
OR
1. a PPL can hold a DFE instructor rating and conduct DFE training.
2. DFE training can be done outside of part 141, 142
3. non 141,142 instructing is classified as a private operation
4. Therefore a PPL can receive payment for instructing (if it is towards a DFE).
5. Also a DFE counts as a Flight Review
6. Therefore a PPL can issue a flight review. But not conduct one.
1. You must demonstrate how to enter and recover from an incipient spin as a unit of competency to attain a SEA type rating (eg a PPL)
(and incipient spins are spins that haven't stabilised - many aircraft will require multiple turns to move from incipient spin to stable spin)
2. You must not deliberately spin an aircraft that is not certified for spinning (most ab initio GA training aircraft)
3. Therefore you cannot teach students to PPL standard solely in aircraft that cannot be spun (eg warrior, 152/172, DA40, etc)
OR
1. Grade 3 instructors cannot conduct a flight review
2. Grade 3 instructors with a DFE can issue a DF Endorsement
3. A DFE counts as a flight review
4. Therefore a Grade 3 instructor can issue a flight review. But not conduct one.
OR
1. a PPL can hold a DFE instructor rating and conduct DFE training.
2. DFE training can be done outside of part 141, 142
3. non 141,142 instructing is classified as a private operation
4. Therefore a PPL can receive payment for instructing (if it is towards a DFE).
5. Also a DFE counts as a Flight Review
6. Therefore a PPL can issue a flight review. But not conduct one.
Can I, as private pilot, lawfully fly a PC12 with 8 mates on board?
Yes, if you or one of your mates is the registered owner of the PC12 and no payment or reward is made or given in relation to the carriage of the passengers.
No, if neither you nor any of your mates is the registered owner of the PC12.
I was the registered owner of the PC 12 last week but, on my accountant’s advice, sold it to a $1 company of which I’m the sole director and now the company is the registered owner of the PC12. The company hires the aircraft to me at an arm’s length rate. Can I lawfully fly it this week with 8 mates on board?
No.
How did the change in ownership from me to my $1 company make the operation ‘dangerous’? (Puff of smoke, dazzling mirrors and a deep voice uttering: “It’s in the interests of the safety of air navigation!”)
OR
Can I cost share a flight on the PC12 with only 1 passenger?
No. The aircraft has a maximum seat configuration of more than 6.
What if I remove 3 of the seats?
No. The aircraft still has a maximum seat configuration of 9.
So if the company sells the aircraft back to me and I become the registered owner, it will again become ‘safe’ for me as a private pilot to fly my 8 mates around, provided there’s no payment or reward? Why’s that? (Puff of smoke, dazzling mirrors and a deep voice uttering: “It’s in the interests of the safety of air navigation!”)
OR
My company sells the PC12 and buys a Bonanza and hires that to me at an arm’s length rate. Can I fly myself and 3 mates around as a private pilot?
Yes, provided you are not remunerated and you pay your company at least one quarter of the direct costs of the flight.
So I can be rewarded but not remunerated?
Yes, reward is not mentioned in the definition of cost-sharing flight.
Why’s it OK for me to be rewarded for a cost-sharing flight in an aircraft owned by someone else but not if I owned the aircraft and didn’t cost share? (Puff of smoke, dazzling mirrors and a deep voice uttering: “It’s in the interests of the safety of air navigation!”)
So just to be clear, provided the aircraft I hire has a maximum seat configuration of 6 and I am not remunerated for the flight and I at least pay my share of the direct costs, I can do that as a private pilot?
Yes.
What if all of my mates pay my $1 company e.g. double their share of the fixed costs of the flight?
Errmmm, that’s you being remunerated.
No it’s not. My company is being remunerated.
Well… you are one and the same.
No I”m not. If I were, you’d treat me as the registered owner but you don’t.
Errmmm (Puff of smoke, dazzling mirrors and a deep voice uttering: “It’s in the interests of the safety of air navigation!”)
Last edited by Lead Balloon; 12th Dec 2021 at 03:59.
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: New Zealand
Age: 71
Posts: 1,475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In theory, your concept is a good one - smart, neat and efficient. Including AI as a consideration is also an advantageous tool. The issue is CASA who are an outdated, non-linear dysfunctional prehistoric mob of renegades could not deliver on your concept. While other government departments such as the Australian Border Force and Department of Agriculture (AQUIS) are investing in AI technology, CASA prefers to remain back in the 1980’s with people like the bookworm Aleck preferring pen and paper and tens of thousands of rules that nobody can fully understand or keep up with.
So Leadie, put your concept in the hands of a restructured and brand new Civil Aviation Authority (that’s right, no ‘Safety’) which is staffed by people well versed in what the year 2022 and beyond has in store, this might work. But without a new Authority as the foundation and while CASA is managed by a bunch of overpaid narcissistic geriatrics, things will be same ol same ol.
So Leadie, put your concept in the hands of a restructured and brand new Civil Aviation Authority (that’s right, no ‘Safety’) which is staffed by people well versed in what the year 2022 and beyond has in store, this might work. But without a new Authority as the foundation and while CASA is managed by a bunch of overpaid narcissistic geriatrics, things will be same ol same ol.
Not my concept.
It can’t work.
CASRs are not the entirety of the rules. It is impossible to answer nearly any question about the regulatory quagmire without also referring to the Act, to CARs, to CAOs, to MOSs, to exemptions and directions.
And, as jonkster pointed out (and I tried to reinforce) there ain’t no logic to it. Artificial ‘intelligence’ is not required. A biblical concordance is required, the safety of air navigation in Australia being a religion.
It can’t work.
CASRs are not the entirety of the rules. It is impossible to answer nearly any question about the regulatory quagmire without also referring to the Act, to CARs, to CAOs, to MOSs, to exemptions and directions.
And, as jonkster pointed out (and I tried to reinforce) there ain’t no logic to it. Artificial ‘intelligence’ is not required. A biblical concordance is required, the safety of air navigation in Australia being a religion.
the safety of air navigation in Australia being a religion.
Do it with CA$A and your flying days are over.
While I worked for CASA we asked why everything had to be so hard to understand. We were told about a place called the Parliamentary Drafting Office, through which all proposed regulation had to be processed before being presented to the Parliament. A quote we were told that came from there was that “Australia has it's own way of drafting law”, hence lifting stuff from NZ or the US simply was no good enough for Australia. Furthermore, should something from CASA not comply, it would be sent back for re-draft. This put it again at the end of the queue, where it might languish for another few years. (And you wondered why there were so many exemptions! It's because CASA cannot keep it's CASRs up to date) One piece I was involved with had been waiting for five years and was still nowhere near being presented to parliament.
Resorting to the AIP, of which the VFG is part, is fraught with danger for the reader because both documents contain “instructions” instead of information, as the names imply. This is another way CASA makes up for their inability to keep the CASRs up to date, even though everything in those documents should have a “head of power”, many do not. When I pointed out that in my job it was very difficult to audit Airservices by reference to CASR Part 172 etc. I was told by my boss to forget the CASRs and simply audit Airservices compliance with their own document, the Manual of Air Traffic Services (MATS). Don't worry that the MATS is required to comply with CASRs, that's above your pay grade!.
My point is that nothing you can imagine can make any difference to a set of rules that are themselves out of date.
Resorting to the AIP, of which the VFG is part, is fraught with danger for the reader because both documents contain “instructions” instead of information, as the names imply. This is another way CASA makes up for their inability to keep the CASRs up to date, even though everything in those documents should have a “head of power”, many do not. When I pointed out that in my job it was very difficult to audit Airservices by reference to CASR Part 172 etc. I was told by my boss to forget the CASRs and simply audit Airservices compliance with their own document, the Manual of Air Traffic Services (MATS). Don't worry that the MATS is required to comply with CASRs, that's above your pay grade!.
My point is that nothing you can imagine can make any difference to a set of rules that are themselves out of date.
Your first paragraph is broadly accurate. Commonwealth legislation is drafted in the context of, for example, the Commonwealth Acts Interpretation Act and Crimes Act, both of which are different to every equivalent in every other jurisdiction within and outside Australia. For example, the reason for the nauseously-repeated penalty provisions in e.g. CASRs is one measly section of the Commonwealth Crimes Act that talks about penalties being at the "foot of any provision". Nobody could be bothered amending that one section so as to remove the need for the nauseous repetition in many millions of pages of Commonwealth legislation.
But I have to ask: How can a CASR be 'out of date'. They've been working on the f*king things for decades.
(The VFG is not part of the AIP.)
But I have to ask: How can a CASR be 'out of date'. They've been working on the f*king things for decades.
(The VFG is not part of the AIP.)
The 'we can't help it, it's the Office of Legal Drafting / Attorney General's Department's fault' just does not wash with me. Four easy steps:
1. Express the reg set from the word go in succinct, plain English with freely available (to all) expressions of intent for every regulation.
2. Consider the regs as a whole, keep them as simple as humanly possible, and resolve all contradictions and ambiguities (this is one part that has been particularly poorly handled with the 02 Dec regs)
3. Let the drafters do what they have to do, but make sure the tail is not allowed to wag the dog.
4. If the unswayable position is that CASA can't do anything about the complexity of the actual regs because of legal drafting issues (which I fully think is crap anyway), then based on the info in Step 1, get very simple plain English guides out for all regs that the public can use to get on with their lives, with the caveat that if anything controversial arises they must be aware that the actual reg is what's going to be used in court, if it comes to that.
1. Express the reg set from the word go in succinct, plain English with freely available (to all) expressions of intent for every regulation.
2. Consider the regs as a whole, keep them as simple as humanly possible, and resolve all contradictions and ambiguities (this is one part that has been particularly poorly handled with the 02 Dec regs)
3. Let the drafters do what they have to do, but make sure the tail is not allowed to wag the dog.
4. If the unswayable position is that CASA can't do anything about the complexity of the actual regs because of legal drafting issues (which I fully think is crap anyway), then based on the info in Step 1, get very simple plain English guides out for all regs that the public can use to get on with their lives, with the caveat that if anything controversial arises they must be aware that the actual reg is what's going to be used in court, if it comes to that.
It probably doesn't help that, for every person's in CASA that you've met who does a good job and tries really hard, there are an equal number of people employed at CASA because no other aviation company would hire them. (We all know someone like that.)
Thread Starter
Doesn't the situation described by GF above support the case to create an interactive APP/Program. It is evident, the reliance on scrolls of legal script to provide "rules" in a timely manner is futile. As incredible as it is, this system nullifies the very purpose of it's existence. The creation a 'Parts" APP/Program (whatever you want to call it), should provide the lay people with appropriate up to date guidance and free up the CASA's people to do worthwhile things whilst the legal drafters are taking a ride with "MAJOR TOM" assembling words of "???" that only have real value to their own-kind.
Hi Lead,
If you mean that the VFG is not issued by Airservices then you are correct. The VFG is, however, issued by CASA and so forms part of State issued pilot information, which in my broad terms makes it part of the AIP or AIS publications if you want to be pedantic.
Anyone that dares to use its contents should read the introduction, which in part states:
Disclaimer: The guide has been prepared by CASA for information purposes only, and while every effort has been made to ensure that the contents accurately
conform to the civil aviation legislation, this guide is not the law. CASA accepts no liability for damages or liability of any kind resulting from its use. You should ensure
you are using the most current version of the VFRG, which can be found on the CASA website casa.gov.au.
The entire CASR rule set is not necessarily up to date because CASA has only been working on translating the 1988 CARs to 1998 CASRs, a job still not finished in 2021. In the meantime, CASRs and Manuals of Standards (MOS) already written are only selectively updated by the over-worked and under-staffed Standards Branch.
If you mean that the VFG is not issued by Airservices then you are correct. The VFG is, however, issued by CASA and so forms part of State issued pilot information, which in my broad terms makes it part of the AIP or AIS publications if you want to be pedantic.
Anyone that dares to use its contents should read the introduction, which in part states:
Disclaimer: The guide has been prepared by CASA for information purposes only, and while every effort has been made to ensure that the contents accurately
conform to the civil aviation legislation, this guide is not the law. CASA accepts no liability for damages or liability of any kind resulting from its use. You should ensure
you are using the most current version of the VFRG, which can be found on the CASA website casa.gov.au.
The entire CASR rule set is not necessarily up to date because CASA has only been working on translating the 1988 CARs to 1998 CASRs, a job still not finished in 2021. In the meantime, CASRs and Manuals of Standards (MOS) already written are only selectively updated by the over-worked and under-staffed Standards Branch.
Last edited by Geoff Fairless; 13th Dec 2021 at 23:30. Reason: Added sentance
Doesn't the situation described by GF above support the case to create an interactive APP/Program. It is evident, the reliance on scrolls of legal script to provide "rules" in a timely manner is futile. As incredible as it is, this system nullifies the very purpose of it's existence. The creation a 'Parts" APP/Program (whatever you want to call it), should provide the lay people with appropriate up to date guidance and free up the CASA's people to do worthwhile things whilst the legal drafters are taking a ride with "MAJOR TOM" assembling words of "???" that only have real value to their own-kind.
You're probably labouring under the reasonable misconception that the "very purpose" of the aviation regulatory regime in Australia is safety. That's supposed to be its very purpose and there are undoubtedly many people in CASA who earnestly believe that the ever-increasing volume and complexity of the regulations and manuals of standards and directions and exemptions and approvals and whatever, is causal of ever-increasing levels of safety. The six figure salaries they are being paid year after year after year probably - hmmmmm 'encourages' is probably the right word - encourages them in that belief. They are of course deluded, but while ever Parliament keeps throwing taxpayers money at them, year after year after year, why would they believe or do anything different?
Incredible as it may seem, the "very purpose" of the aviation regulatory regime in Australia is to insulate politicians from any responsibility for an aviation tragedy. CASA is a political insurance policy. The price we pay is the inexorable strangling of general aviation by the regulatory Frankenstein's monster.
Few people understand who Frankenstein is in this metaphor: Frankenstein is the major political parties who created the monster then abdicated responsibility for keeping it under control.
(Airport privatisation and an incompetent bureaucracy that's failed to administer the Airports Act to achieve its stated objects has been very damaging, too. I listened to some bureaucrat the other day in front of a Senate Committee. She's apparently currently responsible for the administration of the Airports Act and will therefore be some SES Band something or other on a six figure salary. She said it was in the interests of Airport owners to have a good relationship with the lessees of property on the Airport. So here we have a person who isn't on 'planet reality' pretending to administer the Airports Act. She doesn't know and probably doesn't care that many Airport owners couldn't give a toss about their relationship with aviation lessees and are happy to foster an acrimonious relationship: they want us all to f*ck off so they can get on with milking a public asset by erecting DFOs and warehouses on every square inch. The runways and aircraft are pesky inconveniences in the way of property development spivs. They're the people with huge wadges of money and therefore have the ear of many a politician.)
Your proposed App has to be programmed by someone who understands the entirety of the regulatory regime. Act, CARs, CASRs, CAOs, MOSs, Exemptions, Directions etc, etc, etc. I reckon there's only one person on the planet who could come close to pretending to understand it.
If you think the App could be programmed by someone sitting at a table full of CASA 'experts' and asking them what the rules require in a particular set of practical circumstances, good luck with that. You'll need to schedule a decade or so - make it three. You may have heard about Westwind VH-NGA that ditched just off the coast of Norfolk Island. CASA's Flying Operations Inspectors were split around 50/50 on the question whether the pilot was obliged under the rules to divert at an earlier point in flight in the then-prevailing circumstances. That's the CASA flying ops brains trust all applying the same rules to the same factual scenario and coming to diametrically opposed views on whether the pilot was obliged to divert. Imagine how many opinions you'd get on a complicated question.
Extraordinarily happy to be proved wrong. Very happy to volunteer to do some Beta testing on the App.
Last edited by Lead Balloon; 13th Dec 2021 at 23:56.
If you mean that the VFG is not issued by Airservices then you are correct. The VFG is, however, issued by CASA and so forms part of State issued pilot information, which in my broad terms makes it part of the AIP or AIS publications if you want to be pedantic.
Assuming I'm wrong, we should be seeing some SUP/AIC/NOTAM every time there's a change to VFG (and CAAPs and....) shouldn't we?
The entire CASR rule set is not necessarily up to date because CASA has only been working on translating the 1988 CARs to 1998 CASRs, a job still not finished in 2021. In the meantime, CASRs and Manuals of Standards (MOS) already written are only selectively updated by the over-worked and under-staffed Standards Branch.
If someone thinks it should say and mean and do something different, then that someone can organise for it to say and mean and do that different thing.
I don't think 'translation' is the correct adjective to describe the process through which 200 pages of CARs 1988 have more than doubled in size and the CASR 1998 are thousands of pages long and growing. Then add MOSs.
This isn't a translation process. It's a complexification process. Complicators can't resist creating more complication. It's in their DNA. The 'over-worked and under-staffed Standards Branch' is suffering a self-inflicted wound - a chargeable offence in the ADF. I'm sure the reliable six figure salary year after year after year helps to ease the pain though.