To Hell With The Rules.
 

text of Phelans article.

...And you wonder why the industry is rooted?

This is not going to change until a very large number of people are killed in an aviation accident.

To Hell with the rules!

A pretty good summary of the mess.

The penalty/legalese but arose from a Howard Gov't edict that all rules had to be capable of successful prosecution with penalties. CASA's OLC turned this into an art form!

G'day ;)

PS If you've read the article, I'm with Bill Pike all the way!!:ok:

Paul suggests 21 years. If my memory is correct the process commenced in September 1988 - now 22 years.

This thread was commenced in February 2005 and is worth a read.

The only viable solution to regulatory reform in Australia now, would appear to be contracting the regulatory reform task to an external body, with limited time and funding.

CASA has certainly proven it is incapable of completing the task in an acceptable manner.

The excess of rules is one of the main reasons I didn't get back into aviation after my last job finished - It was more difficult to punt a crappy little Metro up & down the east coast of Aus than to fly a 747 around the world.
Left a very bad taste in my mouth.

I knew I would retire before the new rules ever saw the light of day. So it was that retirement has come to pass and still no new rules.

For those still actively working or having a business in the industry I feel very very sorry, your all f@#!$d.

How has it come to this? Phelan's article says it all.

Me I'm finally over it. Now to have a real life with no crew meals, crappy hotels and 4 am sign ons.:)

Now Gents. don't be too judgemental.
 

Feather#3,

It all goes back long before Howard was even elected to Parliament. And the problem didn't arise from anything along the lines you suggest. Have a really good look at all the quotes in the Phelan article, and the OBPR came from a Howard initiative --- but CASA just ignores it.

In 1966 (when QF was taking delivery of its first B707-338Cs) the then Minister for Aviation (Yes!!, we had one) reported on a recommendation that we move to the US style of regulation, the recommendation of a study tour of US by sundry DCA people. All in the 1966 Minister's report to Parliament, Phelan has a copy.

The bureaucrats have been fighting it ever since.

Beazley was a reformer, Brereton made John Anderson look good,(don't even mention Charlie Jones) sadly John Sharp and Mark Vaile didn't stay in the Minister for Transport and Whatever Was Tacked On At The Time long enough, and here we are today.

If Leroy Keith and the PAP had had another year, 90% of the job would have been done.

With a new set of "maintenance" rules as bad as the lot withdrawn by Anderson in 2003, becasue he would not have got them through the Senate. That will be the fate of the latest lot.

Everybody, please read Phelan's paper --- then start writing to your local member.

Tootle pip!!

PS: Start banging on SA Senator Elect David Fawcett's door, he is an aviator of very considerable qualifications, and a bloody good bloke.

$240M on re-writing rules no one can understand into something only lawyers can understand...

for that $$ CASA could donate 120 brand new C208 Caravans to the industry and get rid of half their ageing aircraft problems right there....!

I know... lets have a parliamentary enquiry and blow another $10M.....

Senate Hansard of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee hearings of 14 February 2005, pages 124/5:

Nice quote Torres. And here I was thinking 'Yes Minister' was not a documentary.

I had a chat with a pilot last night at a dinner who looked at importing an English kit built Two seat ultralight that was a pusher, something like a drifter. He found that Two were already flying in Australia.

At the time CASA was paranoid about Two seat ultralights, out of apparent concern for the hapless passenger. They were happy to see the pilot kill himself, but the legal implications of a grieving passengers family were upsetting for CASA.

Their solution to the "safety problem" created by the second seat was to require it be removed and the empty space placarded accordingly. He didn't bother continuing.

I told him what one of the former owners of Gippsland Aeronautics told me about the certification process for the GA8 Airvan; CASA did everything it possibly could to kill that project, and I expect that CASA's attitude was most probably one of the reasons the company has since been sold to Mahindra.

As for CASA having the slightest effect on Qantas, VB, et al, forget it. Ever since at least as early as the 1970's, CASA gets told what it will accept by the big boys, who have to pay for the education of CASA staff into the mysteries of Airbus, Boeing, etc.

That leaves CASA with nothing to do but make the lives of regional airline owners and GA operations as hellish as possible in order to justify their existence. The Benalla and Lockhart river accidents make it obvious that they can't even do that.

After my conversation last night, the chances of myself building an aircraft from a kit (The American CH750) have now diminished accordingly.....and the day before yesterday as the Australian dollar rose, I was itching to do something.

I think CASA must secretly be in league with property developers. I can't think of another reason they would try and kill Aviation.

Is it an RAAF thing? Has employing former RAAF staff done it to CASA? I had Two former RAAF bosses in my career, both of them were complete pricks.

I wouldn't think it has anything to do with the RAAF. There are a mix of really good guys and not so good guys which come from there, like any organisation (born & bred QF managers are no different). The "complete pricks" I know who are ex-RAAF were also complete pricks when I knew them in the RAAF! The personalities don't change. Just the job.

If you can get a kit which can be built & certified under FAA regs (eg experimental or whatever) CASA are very likely to approve it here. Mine is coming with FAA paperwork already stamped, and I've had advice on multiple fronts that the CASA certificate won't be a problem at all.

Hey Torres....

Are you sure it's 22yrs? That seems to quick a turn around if you ask me.

Stiky
:zzz:

Dutchy:

Been through all that. The CH 750 is a 600kg American designed and approved LSA to ASTM standards which is approved as a 51% amateur build kit by the FAA. RAA is limited to 544 kg for kit built LSA. The Ch 750 is now uprated to 650 kg. It has to go the "Experimental" VH register route otherwise its payload is ridiculously limited.

At least if its on the VH register, and has a certified engine, it might be allowed to operate over built up areas.

However, if I lose my medical the aircraft will have to go on the RAA register, lose 50 kg MTOW (or 100kg if the supposedly long awaited RAA kit built MTOW limit is not upgraded to 600kg).

The first Australian CH750 is being built at the moment (Rotax 912), but then has to go through a "first of type" evaluation by CASA.

What the "first of type" process will probably do, given CASA's reputation, is freeze the only allowable configuration for the Australian built kit aircraft without getting a variation or exemption from CASA, and that both costs money and has an uncertain outcome. For example, I've seen an aircraft grounded over a missing un-vented fuel cap after CASA refused to accept the simple expedient of applying a blanking plate held down with six screws to the full tank was deemed unacceptable.

Yet in America this aircraft is being built with Rotax, Jabiru, Lycoming and Continental engines and is fitted with whatever avionics the builder decides on, let alone fuel systems, autopilots and God knows what changes.

It took me about Six weeks of trying to reconcile the regs with CASA's rules with no success. I eventually was put on to the RAA who gave me about half the answer. The distributor was more enlightening, but the overall level of risk associated with a lack of plain English regulations including what will be allowed and what will not, and the capriciousness of CASA as evidenced by numerous PPrune threads, leads me the decision not to commit $50,000 to a project that may end up "sitting on a pole".

...And yes, I have been told "if you live in outback Queensland no one will bother you", but I don't live in outback Queensland, I live in Melbourne. I've also been told "She'll be right", and that there are various "work arounds" but the regulations don't say that, and no CASA inspector would either.

I want it in black and white in plain English, but of course CASA can't and won't provide that, and neither can anyone else.

To put it another way: You said your kit is "very likely" to be approved.

I have found the hard way in fields outside aviation that "very likely" is not something to base a business decision on. I also sadly note that the "advice" has a nasty habit of not being correct, at which time the advisers melt away like snow in the sun.

I've asked for certainty. I haven't found it, and no one will give it to me. I know I could buy a Foxbat or something else factory built at twice the price of a kit, but that's above my budget so forget it.

Capricious behaviour by public servants is unacceptable. It's killing aviation.

For what it's worth, when I retired I'd planned to buy an aircraft. The state of regulation meant we bought a boat!

However, although I still hold a Class 1 Medical and ME[A]-CIR while flying a variety of aircraft, it's not getting any easier!:ugh:

G'day ;)

Back in 2003 at the CASA sponsored FLOT Conference in Sydney, one of the recommendations that came out of the 2 day event was....


the greatest hazard to flight safety in Australia was the Attorney's General Department.
Rules written by people that did not understand the industry and conditions of strict liability peppered thru the documents. What a way to scare people away from the industry!

I believe it was true then and certainly true now. Sad part is that nobody in Government or CASA gives a hoot! Just protecting their rear ends.:ugh::ugh:

Sunfish,
Double check with RAOz, but I thing 600kg is the weight for an LSA, 544 kg is for "traditional" ultralights.
Tootle pip!!

Leadsled, according to the Distributor of the CH750, the RAA can register a factory built LSA with MTOW of 600kg.

The RAA can only register the same kit built LSA at 544kg.

Then there is the question of configuration. You cannot change anything at all on a factory built LSA without the manufacturers approval, which they may or may not, decide to give for purely commercial reasons. There is no onus on them to do anything at all. I doubt that a pilot can even maintain a factory built LSA.

As to what configurations are allowable in a kit built aircraft for registration in the experimental category, that is anyone's guess, but my assumption from reading Pprune and the total lack of hard facts available anywhere on the web, combined with CASA impenetrable regulations, leads me to suspect the worst.

The "worst" is that "It depends" on the individual CASA official involved, and that any determination is going to cost a lot of money and take a lot of time. More importantly, it would involve considerable investment in nervous energy in interacting with the powers that be.

To put it another way; the total lack of clear concise guidelines and the absolute lack of any authoritative voice willing to put their names to anything on this subject tells me everything I want to know.

To put it another way "ring XXXXXXXX at YYYYY and he'll put you right" is not an answer because it ain't official and of course it ain't in writing.

To put it yet another way. If I built a CH 750 with a Jabiru 3300, the larger Dynon EFIS plus Autopilot, shove an Airmaster Constant speed prop on it, do the fuel lines behind the firewall in metal to aircraft standards instead of rubber with a Three position fuel cock and fit a BRS chute, is CASA going to say "No worries Mate! Your good to go!"?

If it didn't weigh any more than 544 and stalls at less than 45Kts you can. RA-Aus register this A/C amateur built experimental, plans/scratch/kit built. (19 catagory, I think).

If it is built in a factory it can weigh 600KG and is LSA.

It is possible to have two identical Jabiru aircraft, both registered by RA-Aus, one 600KG factory built (LSA),and the other 544KG experimental/ kit owner built (UL). It is also possible to have a third identical jabiru factory built with VH registration with a factory desigated weight. All have different maintenance schedules, the VH and LSA more closely linked to the factory.

What LeadSled said.

According to the article:I get it: Our big bwave bosses have been wattelled by a wowdy wabble of wascally woyers and webbel workers, for a vewwy wong time.

'I twied vewwy, vewwy hard to pwogwess this pwoject. I even issued some diwectives and held my bweff until my face turned bwue, but some of those scairwee woyers and public servants disagweed wiff me! Those woyers and public servants are vewwy, vewwy scairwee. They used words! [Resumes sucking thumb.]

If the various people who have been nominally in charge of this process over recent decades actually disagreed with the "former and present CASA lawyers" and the "'resistance movement' of officials", but have been too p*ssweak or incompetent to take charge and finish the job despite them, well boo bloody hoo princesses. If they can't find someone with the resolve to act contrary to the advice of lawyers, as well as tell the members of this 'resistance movement' to shut up and do what they're told to do or move aside, where else would you expect to be by now?

If it's true that this increasingly costly fiasco is almost solely the work of former and present CASA lawyers, supported by a “resistance movement” of officials, all it means is that no one has actually been in charge.

The reason regulatory 'reform' has become a perpetual inertia machine is that lots of patsies continue to focus and expend their energy on blaming the wrong people, which is precisely what the people who are actually responsible for this fiasco intend. Lawyers' advice can be ignored; 'resistance movements' can be crushed or by-passed. Ask yourselves this: why hasn't that happened?

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).