Sunfish, your are complicating things un-neccessarily. KISS mate KISS.

Jack Ranga. I'm not complicating things unnecessarily.

I tried looking for a simple answer and found none. It took me Six bloody weeks to get with the knowledge I've already got!

The systems are deliberately made capricious by CASA.

If you want evidence, why did it take me Six weeks and Three interrogations of "knowledgeable persons" to get what I've already got?

- That a kit built LSA is limited to 544kg if registered by the RAA, not withstanding the fact that it was designed for 600Kg and registered at that level elsewhere in the first world?

- As for CASA registration as "Experimental" has anyone pointed me to a concise online source of information? All I get is "it depends", depends on what? Placing $500 in a paper bag?

There is ample evidence of the capricious behaviour of CASA chronicled on Pprune and evidenced in appeal after appeal to the AMT.

To put it another way: no one will go on record, state the requirements and provide guidelines that reduce uncertainty. Not RAA, not SAAA, no one. That tells me all I need to know.

To quote Glen Greenwald from today "There is only one thing worse than bad laws, and that's bad laws that are selectively applied."

That appears to be exactly the situation we face in Australian aviation right now.

Creampuff;

Let me remove some unnecessary words so most can better understand:


“various people- nominally in charge- process- decades- disagreed- lawyers- officials,- incompetent- finish the job , prince., (sorry), resolve- act contrary- advice of lawyers-, 'resistance movement'- shut up- do what told -expect to be.- CASA lawyers,-officials,…………….no one has actually been in charge.

regulatory 'reform'-perpetual inertia machine-lots of patsies-focus- expend energy- blaming the wrong people,……………what the people who are actually responsible for this fiasco intend”.


The rot is set from the Minister’s office to the coal face. Nobody should be spared the knife. When confidence is lost, which it has, the people who are affected most will take unforgiving revenge.

Liken this to the farming sector and their response to the vandalism inflicted upon their livelihoods by a communist lobby, supported by an equally incompetent government with too much power and too little brains

Whilst we have disagreed in the past, I agree with your sentiments, however “let he who is without sin cast the first stone”.

Exactly.
And ... why shouldn't they?

I think we have to attack this problem from a different angle.
As long as their arses are vulnerable, they will steadfastly protect them ... even if it means others, like Sunfish, have to suffer.

We need to be working on removing the potential risk to their arses.
Once that is achieved, then regulatory reform may be possible.

God spare me peuce, they all need a savage public humiliation.

They have to become such of a liability to the government that they will be sacrificed to save the politician's skins.

This mess was created by lack of accountability to the politician's and their constituents, an out of control manipulating bureaucracy and can only have a political solution.

Start with the cancer in the ministers own office. (actualy start with the minister). The rest of the bludgers, (and they know who they are), will jump ship with whatever they can get as a going away present. Money well spent, and they will carry the shame with them to their next employment.

Don't rely on the pathetic apathy of the industry or those who's business is indirectly sponsored by CASA cronyism.

The simple truth
 

On a good day it is possible to talk to someone, located within the confines of fortress CASA, about a problem that falls in the area of regulation, and to which their knowledge levels should reach. Those good days are far and few.
On a bad day the only reliable operation, if telephone is the source of communication, are the lady(s) on the switchboard, as those wishing to be contacted are invariably not available.
For those CASA staff that try to help, rather than hinder industry and operations I ‘tip me lid’ – but they are so rare that they should be classified as protected species.
For those other CASA staff, who are supposed to provide a service but are unable to for reasons of incompetence, should clear their desks and head out of the regulatory industry and put a bit of time with those who are in the real world (if they could talk any one into giving them a job) to gain that understanding of the real problems we face. Those that attempt to justify their existence by continually placing barriers or unnecessary delay in the way of ‘customers’ – and yes, it should be a service industry – should be shown the door by their respective reporting managers. And if that does not work then the managers should be removed followed by political ramifications that should be explored.
My rant

Give me strength.
 

The angst, aggravation, uncertainty, b@@S$$, convolutions and legal gobbledygook required to get an insignificant 'safety risk' (all 500 kg [or 600 if you like] of it) going. Hell, it weighs taxi fuel.

How, in all the hells are we supposed to manage real operations, legally, in just a bit 'bigger' airframes, if this sort of stuff goes on. Unbelievable.

The Phelan article alone, in a real world deserves a real 'gloves off' Royal commission. Go figure how brainwashed we all are, this discussion; amongst professionals, beggars all belief.:ugh:

Sunfish,
Call Dines Aviation Services in Sydney, the best source of accurate knowledge of the combinations and permutations of the rules surrounding other than standard cat. Cof A aeroplanes.
You will get straight, understandable and legally correct answers.
Tootle pip!!

Sunfish! See? Toldya :ok:

Still no 600kg for RAA.... Discussions still "ongoing".

I might talk to the SAAA at Avalon. in March.

Part 91 in Australia.... designed for the lowest common denominator..what ever happened to common sense? And I don't blame the pilots....

FAA Part 91 is a little too lean
 

The FAA Part 91 is not such a great bench-mark, at least for safety. Did you know it is legal to operate a BBJ under the USA Part 91 with private pilots, taking off in any visibility, having no regard for obstacle clearance after takeoff, and have unlimited duty periods?

Too lean IMHO.

FlareArmed, which of the above are prohibited in Australia? :}

Flarearmed: possible perhaps, but has it happened? Insurance policies would negate it. However, if someone wanted to do it and had the money...why not?

notaplanegeek is right.

Hundreds of pages of legalese for the lowest common idiot.

The FARs are more than an adequate set of rules in each of the appropriate sections. They are not all inclusive or all encompassing but cover all the major areas.
They are written so as to not be overly burdensome, at least compared to Aust regs, as there is an expectation that people hopefully have enough brains to not go ahead and do something terminally stupid. :ugh:
Just because it is "legal" doesnt necessarily make it "safe". :ugh:

To use FlareArmed example, just because you can legally take off in zero viz part 91 etc doesn't mean people do so.
I never heard of a single example of someone attempting to do so, whether they got away with it or not.:ugh:

Generally speaking the vast majority of people are always trying to follow rules and procedures and do the right thing.
If someone directly involved in flying an aeroplane is not it is they for starters who are going to be the first on the scene of the accident and suffering the consequences.

In other words, people should be and need to be using their brains and some common bloody sense, if they don't have enough of either and they decide to deliberately not follow rules designed to protect their own safety and that of those around them they shouldn't be flying anyway.
You cannot legislate against stupidity or to try and cover all scenarios (even though CASA is attempting to do so).:ugh::mad:

I believe in minimum regulation: a solid foundation of key whats with few hows – I just don't think FAR 91 is adequate for all the flights conducted under it.

Some examples I know of include:

• 23 hour duties with two pilots (on a two pilot jet) – not hanging around in the crew-room; I mean flying and doing turn-arounds,
• Twin engine jets flying along routes that include long sections of terrain well above the single-engine ceiling – without any escape route,
• Jets taking off in only 200 metres visibility at unattended airports, and
• Multiengine jets taking off in IMC with no chance of clearing terrain if an EFATO happens (Aspen).

While you might say, "Why not if you've got the money", these pilots are not only risking their own lives – they fly in the same airspace as everyone else, and may have owner-passengers unknowingly accepting risks. I know of one private jet owner who was unhappy to find out his pilots were flying over-water with inadequate fuel if the pressurisation failed; he found out because a friend – another business jet owner, better informed – explained why his pilots wouldn't fly a particular route non-stop.

I served on an airline Procedures Committee advocating to set a minimum baseline, and let the pilots be pilots to meet or exceed it. Unfortunately the (fear based) culture was to spell out every tiny detail of what the pilots said and did: I recall there was almost a page on how to set frequencies on the VHFs – ridiculous IMHO.

I believe the regulators should clearly articulate a sensible black and white baseline, and let aviators get on with it – I don't agree with regulators' penchant for losing the forest in the trees.

They can only legislate to penalise – not prevent deliberate violations or absurdly risky flying, but I believe there are holes in the argument for near total self-regulation based on there being a majority of sensible pilots.

FlareArmed

You state;

This is a common misconception. All pilots, corporate flight departments and private individuals who wish to fly their own Boeing or Bizjet with more than 6000lbs payload or greater than 20 seats is subject to FAR Part 125 .

Part 125 allows the FAA to issue some individuals and corporate flight departments Letters of Deviation from part or all of Part 125. See this interesting review of Part 125

It may be worth noting that Part 125 also has take off and landing minimums.

It may also be worth noting that Part 125 also deals with duty times and most certainly does not allow a 23 hour duty. Nevertheless, flying while fatigued by a 23 hour duty would almost certainly be considered reckless under Part 91.13

MJB

mjbow2

Thanks for the link to the article.

I can guarantee there are BBJs under Part 91. There are many with only 19 seats (certified for takeoff and landing), or where the weight and balance manual is changed to limit the payload below 6000 lbs – there is an FAA document that OKs doing it.

Boeing also has a document comparing Part 125 to Part 91 for prospective BBJ buyers.

With regards to letters of deviation from Part 125, there is an FAA internal memo trying to end the party on that one – the FAA is suggesting there is no point in Part 125 if they waive everything down to Part 91 standards – the final letter depends on each FSDO: sometimes you can strike gold and other times hit bedrock. They no longer issue full deviations from Part 125; you have to request a deviation from each sub-part and they are not easy to get anymore.

FlareArmed

As I stated the FAA can issue Letters of Deviation for parts or ALL of Part 125. Of course there are operators of large jets operating under Part 91.

You only stated part of the facts relating to private flight in large jets.

In my view Part 91 is perfectly adequate even for large privately flown aircraft. As the FAA has repeatedly stated, Part 91 operators of large jets have an outstanding safety record. There is no safety case to provide overly prescriptive rules to a problem that does not exist. Contrary to the 'Australian way' of rulemaking.

At least the FAA have Part 125. To my knowledge Australia does not have the equivalent but are leaning on private operators of large private jets to operate with an AOC. Perhaps you have first hand knowledge of this?

This is complete overkill in my view and is another example of the prescriptive nature of Australian rulemaking that puts an ever increasing stranglehold on Aviation.

Guaranteed that if the FAA saw a spike in OEI terrain collisions or fatigue related accidents etc Part 125 would be changed to exclude for example the option of Letters Of Exemption.

Without evidence of high accident rates under our equivalent or proposed Part 91 and the FAAs Part 91 for large jets, why should we put up with hundreds of pages of rules compared to 30 odd? Or is this the 'Australian way'?

mjbow2

My experience is with the FAA; I don't know much about the Aussie regs these days. I can tell you first-hand the FAA no longer issues letters of deviation for all of Part 125 – they can, but there is an internal document that says they won't, hence the need to apply for a deviation from each sub-part.

An ex-FAA manager told me there is pressure inside the FAA and TSA to, "do something about those BBJ owners". The inference – they have too few rules, but I agree the proof is in the pudding.

It's probably a "duh" observation, but I notice the smaller the aircraft, the more likely the chance of an unsafe operation. My opinion: if someone buys a BBJ, they are more likely to hire ex-airline pilots who come pre-loaded with good knowledge and experience of flying jets – and have a supportive OEM; someone buying a VLJ, is more likely to hire pilots less likely to know the ins and outs of jet flying (runway analysis, overwater drift-down etc): the risk is higher and the accident rate follows.

I agree to disagree about Part 91 – I don't think it's solid: but not far from it. IMHO it was born to cover simple private flyers and has failed to grow (enough) with private aircraft capability. It's not what it contains; it's what's missing. For example, the latest business jets can fly for over 14 hours, but under Part 91 they can plan reserves of only 45 minutes (at cruise FF), and allow nothing at all for contingencies. I think that's wrong. Another example – no duty limits. I know of a jet that flew the same two pilots on two back-to-back 12 hour sectors – they took turns sleeping on the floor. I think it's wrong Part 91 makes it legal (I mean the duty period – the sleeping on the floor is not so legal).

I don't think the authors of Part 91 ever imagined it would cover this kind of operation. I am not a regulation zealot; quite the opposite – I believe in simple, sensible rules to protect pilots from themselves (and unreasonable owners).