PPRuNe Forums - EASA + CASA + FAA + CAA + DGCA

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)

- Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific (https://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific-90/)

- - EASA + CASA + FAA + CAA + DGCA (https://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/621619-easa-casa-faa-caa-dgca.html)

EASA + CASA + FAA + CAA + DGCA

Rather than having different regulations for each region, can't they all merge and have a common system for licensing and requirements?

In theory, yes.

Practically, which nation's interpretation of ICAO Annex 6, all the other annexes and all the SARP's does everybody else adopt?
Probably though, the good folks in Chicago in 1944 got it as close to standard as the nationalist allows..

If ICAO could grow a set (UN masters>rolls eyes) then you may have a chance. Even make a bloody start. ICAO standard medical, valid in all ICAO jurisdictions.

Ahhh now wouldn’t that make life simple!

I have 3 diff ATPL’s not EASA, looked at doing however the thought of 14 exams kinda put me off.

Common sense shall never apply!

"Rather than having different regulations for each region, can't they all merge and have a common system for licensing and requirements?"

I thought there was, it's called ICAO :confused:

Quote:

Originally Posted by beached az (Post 10477498)

"Rather than having different regulations for each region, can't they all merge and have a common system for licensing and requirements?"

I thought there was, it's called ICAO :confused:

ICAO only makes recommendations (SARPS). It’s up to individual states to implement them. Few states (if any) simply adopt the SARPS “as is”. Hence the ICAO differences section in Jepps. Australia is one of the most non-compliant ICAO states. Just check out the size of Australia’s differences section. One big difference between ICAO and Australia is the ICAO recommendation for a mandatory retirement age of 65.

I doubt that that there will ever be a uniform set of rules to cover aviation law just as there will never be common international laws to cover motor vehicle driving. Some countries will choose to drive on the right and others will drive on the left. That’s just how it is.

While we are at it- how about globalising the units used in aviation, eg only litres, kg, Celsius,, metres etc. sux fly in to the use and talking vis n feet, pressure in inches of mercury etc or China with its metric ness.

Oh oh and another thing, make English the only language spoken on the radio.

:)

Global harmonisation! A wet dream as CASA can't even harmonise the regions on issues...

Too many careers potentially affected. Fergetabatit.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Capn Rex Havoc (Post 10477523)

While we are at it- how about globalising the units used in aviation, eg only litres, kg, Celsius,, metres etc. sux fly in to the use and talking vis n feet, pressure in inches of mercury etc

ICAO’s policy is for standard units for Aviation. It probably would’ve happened had one certain country bothered to implement the metric system.

Quote:

Oh oh and another thing, make English the only language spoken on the radio.

It’s not use of other languages that’s the problem, it’s those who choose to speak English without using standard phraseology:

That controller is a dick.

Ee Tee De are....you serious?

In response to the usual uninformed rants about the extent of Australian differences from ICAO SARPS, see here https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publ...ction_1.7.html for the FAA.. No one should wish zero differences. We could not afford it

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vag277 (Post 10478303)

Folks,
Last time I noticed, Australia filed something over 4000 differences to ICAO --- based on evidence to the RRAT Senate Standing Committee.(Nearly 5000??)

Think of the unemployment consequences if we complied.

Quite frankly, many of the differences, of which I am aware, are farcical, and complying would make no difference, certainly not risk levels.

In short, in my opinion, many of the Australian "differences" are differences for the sake of being different. But they do often have quite severe operational or other financial penalties.

Indeed, one former CASA very senior lawyer was of the view that ICAO compliance equated to "surrendering our sovereignty" ----- risk management ( aka. air safety) didn't rate as an issue.

Tootle pip!

PS: Last time I looked, US only filed a very small number of difference to ICAO Annex X, Vol 2 Standard Phraseology --- mostly to do with descent clearances..

Quote:

It’s not use of other languages that’s the problem, it’s those who choose to speak English without using standard phraseology:

You obviously have not flown in France or China or Spain or Russia, or Italy - to name a few.

'or Italy'...

Tell moi, - how does one wave one's arms in front of de mike and expressa one'sa selfa ??

Just afoolin-a......

Benefit some but just give Qantas a free ticket to get rid of more of us for more overseas cheap labour