CASA, er 'Say Again"
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: The Coast of Sunshine, Australia
Posts: 253
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CASA, er 'Say Again"
When I need clarification of any words/meanings contained in the CAR's, I go to CAR (1988) Part 1 (2) Interpretation. That is until I got to para D.5 which says:
"Where any rule contained in the provisions of Division 2 of Part 11 or in the provisions of Parts 12 and 13 contains a provision similar to that of a rule contained in the Rules of the Air adopted in pursuance of the Convention, but a distance which in the last-mentioned rule is expressed by kilometres, metres or centimetres (as the case may be) is in the first-mentioned rule expressed in miles, feet or inches, an aircraft which, in respect of that distance, complies with the last-mentioned rule shall also be deemed to comply with the first-mentioned rule." <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
I know I am just a boggy aviator and not a lawyer, perhaps I need to be one to make any sense out of this!
Disco Stu
"Where any rule contained in the provisions of Division 2 of Part 11 or in the provisions of Parts 12 and 13 contains a provision similar to that of a rule contained in the Rules of the Air adopted in pursuance of the Convention, but a distance which in the last-mentioned rule is expressed by kilometres, metres or centimetres (as the case may be) is in the first-mentioned rule expressed in miles, feet or inches, an aircraft which, in respect of that distance, complies with the last-mentioned rule shall also be deemed to comply with the first-mentioned rule." <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
I know I am just a boggy aviator and not a lawyer, perhaps I need to be one to make any sense out of this!
Disco Stu
Makes perfect sence to me <img src="eek.gif" border="0"> As always a well worded document. Imagine if real world conversation was conducted the same as aviation documentation!
Me fail english, thats unpossible!
Me fail english, thats unpossible!
It’s simple Stu: compliance with a rule of the air imposed by reference to the metric distance system under the Chicago Convention is deemed to be compliance with a similar rule expressed by reference to the imperial distance system under the CARs.
Your concern is understandable but unnecessary. If you comply in fact with a rule of the air under the CARs, then the question whether you might be deemed to have complied with that rule as a consequence of compliance with a similar rule under the Chicago Convention, is academic. As most of us are blissfully unaware of what the Chicago Convention is or does, then you’re unlikely to find yourself on the horns of a dilemma where you can’t decide whether to comply with a distance set by a rule of the air under the Chicago Convention, or a different distance imposed by a similar rule under the CARs.
Are you aware of a rule of the air under the Chicago Convention expressed in metres that, when converted to feet, is a different distance than required by a similar rule imposed by the CARs? If you do, then the good news is that your compliance with the former will be deemed to be compliance with the latter.
If you’re really, really worried about this, and you’re really, really bored, here’s what I suggest you do. First, find out whether the Chicago Convention sets a minimum height over populous areas of 300 meters. If – note ‘if’ - the answer’s yes, you can fly around at 985 feet over populous areas and you will be deemed to have complied with CAR 157(1(a), notwithstanding that you are below the 1000 feet prescribed by that regulation.
Those 15 feet are just begging to be cruised in!
Your concern is understandable but unnecessary. If you comply in fact with a rule of the air under the CARs, then the question whether you might be deemed to have complied with that rule as a consequence of compliance with a similar rule under the Chicago Convention, is academic. As most of us are blissfully unaware of what the Chicago Convention is or does, then you’re unlikely to find yourself on the horns of a dilemma where you can’t decide whether to comply with a distance set by a rule of the air under the Chicago Convention, or a different distance imposed by a similar rule under the CARs.
Are you aware of a rule of the air under the Chicago Convention expressed in metres that, when converted to feet, is a different distance than required by a similar rule imposed by the CARs? If you do, then the good news is that your compliance with the former will be deemed to be compliance with the latter.
If you’re really, really worried about this, and you’re really, really bored, here’s what I suggest you do. First, find out whether the Chicago Convention sets a minimum height over populous areas of 300 meters. If – note ‘if’ - the answer’s yes, you can fly around at 985 feet over populous areas and you will be deemed to have complied with CAR 157(1(a), notwithstanding that you are below the 1000 feet prescribed by that regulation.
Those 15 feet are just begging to be cruised in!
Stu, don't tell me you're worried about your Victa's fuel tank being calibrated in Imp. Gallons instead of litres or kilos! 
PS: Any news of twits with rabbits?
PS: Any news of twits with rabbits?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: The Coast of Sunshine, Australia
Posts: 253
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Creampuff, I knew there had to be a simple explanation, pity it could not have been incorporated into the "Interpretation".
Tinny, mercifully I've not heard anything related to 'rabbits' for a couple of years. I am however reminded of their exsistance every time I do a fuel drain by that well known sticker.
Disco Stu
I survived being lost in the Warrenbungles !
Tinny, mercifully I've not heard anything related to 'rabbits' for a couple of years. I am however reminded of their exsistance every time I do a fuel drain by that well known sticker.
Disco Stu
I survived being lost in the Warrenbungles !
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Oztralia, near MEL
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Stu, how are you mate?
WRT the expression of para D.5, is it possible to have worded the intent with any greater level of complexity?? <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0">
oooooooohh damn.......... I forgot it was done by public servants who have nothing better to do than see how complex they can make it without actually loosing the meaning totally. <img src="eek.gif" border="0"> <img src="wink.gif" border="0">
WRT the expression of para D.5, is it possible to have worded the intent with any greater level of complexity?? <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0">
oooooooohh damn.......... I forgot it was done by public servants who have nothing better to do than see how complex they can make it without actually loosing the meaning totally. <img src="eek.gif" border="0"> <img src="wink.gif" border="0">
Join Date: Feb 1999
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Civil Aviation Act 1988
Third Edition
Amendment 8 - December 1999
Tabling of Directions or Notices of the Minister
96 (1) No pilot, or pilots or person or persons acting on the direction or suggestion or
supervision of the pilot or pilots, may try, or attempt to try, or make, or attempt to
make, or attempt to try to comprehend or understand any or all, in whole or in part, of
the herein mentioned Civil Aviation Act 1988, Civil Aviation Regulations or Civil Aviation
Orders, except as authorised by the Minister or a person authorised by or inspected by the Minister.
(2) If the pilot, or group of associated pilots becomes aware of, or realises, or detects,
or discovers, or finds that he, or she, or they, are, or have been beginning to
understand the Civil Aviation Act 1988, , Civil Aviation Regulations or Civil Aviation
Orders, they must immediately, within three (3) days, notify the Minister in writing.
(3) Upon receipt of the above mentioned notice of impending comprehension, the
Minister will immediately re-write the Civil Aviation Act 1988, The Civil Aviation
Regulations or Civil Aviation Orders in such a manner as to eliminate any further
comprehension hazards.
(4)The Minister may, at his or her opinion, require the offending pilot, or pilots, to
attend remedial instruction in the Civil Aviation Act 1988, The Civil Aviation Regulations,
or Civil Aviation Orders until such a time that the pilot or pilots, are too confused to be
capable of understanding anything.
Third Edition
Amendment 8 - December 1999
Tabling of Directions or Notices of the Minister
96 (1) No pilot, or pilots or person or persons acting on the direction or suggestion or
supervision of the pilot or pilots, may try, or attempt to try, or make, or attempt to
make, or attempt to try to comprehend or understand any or all, in whole or in part, of
the herein mentioned Civil Aviation Act 1988, Civil Aviation Regulations or Civil Aviation
Orders, except as authorised by the Minister or a person authorised by or inspected by the Minister.
(2) If the pilot, or group of associated pilots becomes aware of, or realises, or detects,
or discovers, or finds that he, or she, or they, are, or have been beginning to
understand the Civil Aviation Act 1988, , Civil Aviation Regulations or Civil Aviation
Orders, they must immediately, within three (3) days, notify the Minister in writing.
(3) Upon receipt of the above mentioned notice of impending comprehension, the
Minister will immediately re-write the Civil Aviation Act 1988, The Civil Aviation
Regulations or Civil Aviation Orders in such a manner as to eliminate any further
comprehension hazards.
(4)The Minister may, at his or her opinion, require the offending pilot, or pilots, to
attend remedial instruction in the Civil Aviation Act 1988, The Civil Aviation Regulations,
or Civil Aviation Orders until such a time that the pilot or pilots, are too confused to be
capable of understanding anything.
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Australasia
Posts: 362
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Creampuff,
I have doubts that Stu was ever confused by what it actually meant.
I thought that your response was unusually incomplete in that you declined to mention the means, if any, that have been used to bring the Chicago Convention into Oz aviation law and, therefore, when compliance with the standards set out in the Annexes (made in accordance with Article 37 but not in the Convention itself) is, if ever, required.
<img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0"> <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0"> <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0">
I have doubts that Stu was ever confused by what it actually meant.
I thought that your response was unusually incomplete in that you declined to mention the means, if any, that have been used to bring the Chicago Convention into Oz aviation law and, therefore, when compliance with the standards set out in the Annexes (made in accordance with Article 37 but not in the Convention itself) is, if ever, required.
<img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0"> <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0"> <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0">
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Eeeerm so how many angels were you able to get dancing on the head of that pin then?
Creampuff and 4Dogs
I am dying to come to grips with stuff thats going on here and in other threads, (4Dogs is gonna be for it on the Whyalla thing ) but remain frustrated coz I have a task that must be completed and sent by tomorrow and I have been tres busy like yourselves in revenue producing activities and playing referee for some fun and games.
But I'm absolutely certain that the universe will continue to rotate in my absence for the moment. <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0"> <img src="cool.gif" border="0">
Creampuff and 4Dogs
I am dying to come to grips with stuff thats going on here and in other threads, (4Dogs is gonna be for it on the Whyalla thing
) but remain frustrated coz I have a task that must be completed and sent by tomorrow and I have been tres busy like yourselves in revenue producing activities and playing referee for some fun and games.But I'm absolutely certain that the universe will continue to rotate in my absence for the moment. <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0"> <img src="cool.gif" border="0">
Oh you are a tease, 4dogs.
A blurb about the effect of section 3A of the Air Navigation Act 1920, section 11 of the Civil Aviation Act 1988, Teoh and Project Blue Sky would be ever so boring. Blissful ignorance has its benefits.
Here’s a test for you, grasshoppers. Which Act contains this provision, and what does it do?
[quote] ... the Commissioner may:
(a) treat a particular event that actually happened as not having happened; and
(b) treat a particular event that did not actually happen as having happened and, if appropriate, treat the event as:
(i) having happened at a particular time; and
(ii) having involved particular action by a particular entity; and
(c) treat a particular event that actually happened as:
(i) having happened at a time different from the time it actually happened; or
(ii) having involved particular action by a particular entity (whether or not the event actually involved any action by that entity).
And I don’t want any ‘the-dog-ate-my-homework’ excuses from you, Gaunty.
A blurb about the effect of section 3A of the Air Navigation Act 1920, section 11 of the Civil Aviation Act 1988, Teoh and Project Blue Sky would be ever so boring. Blissful ignorance has its benefits.
Here’s a test for you, grasshoppers. Which Act contains this provision, and what does it do?
[quote] ... the Commissioner may:
(a) treat a particular event that actually happened as not having happened; and
(b) treat a particular event that did not actually happen as having happened and, if appropriate, treat the event as:
(i) having happened at a particular time; and
(ii) having involved particular action by a particular entity; and
(c) treat a particular event that actually happened as:
(i) having happened at a time different from the time it actually happened; or
(ii) having involved particular action by a particular entity (whether or not the event actually involved any action by that entity).
And I don’t want any ‘the-dog-ate-my-homework’ excuses from you, Gaunty.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Usually Australia
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Creampuff,
I am sure that piece of legislation has been extracted from the New South Wales Railways Act of 1962 and permits the Commissioner of the said railway to deny or admit the non-arrival or arrival, respectively, of a particular traction engine formerly propelled by steam and drawing several conveyances for the travel therein, that regularly plied the coastal route between Sydney and Brisbane without regard for the commuters dependent thereon.
[ 09 January 2002: Message edited by: dragchute ]</p>
I am sure that piece of legislation has been extracted from the New South Wales Railways Act of 1962 and permits the Commissioner of the said railway to deny or admit the non-arrival or arrival, respectively, of a particular traction engine formerly propelled by steam and drawing several conveyances for the travel therein, that regularly plied the coastal route between Sydney and Brisbane without regard for the commuters dependent thereon.
[ 09 January 2002: Message edited by: dragchute ]</p>
Thank you indeed, justapplere.
It’s not often we organ grinders get the recognition we deserve. Maybe that’s because people with your formidable forensic skills are few and far between.
Lots of people think the culprit was obvious, after the detective has announced “The butler did it!”. But only the detective noticed and understood the implications of the tiny clues along the way.
Only you noticed the tiny but tell-tale clues as to my identity. I can read and write. That narrows the field considerably, in an antipodean aviators’ forum. The things I say about the law are generally accurate. That rules out most of the remaining narrow field. I am usually the lone voice in defence of the legal department. Lay down misere.
Well done, Sherlock!
But we CASA people should stick together, jusapplhere. Don’t forget who throws you the peanuts.
Dragchute – nice try, but no kewpie doll I’m afraid.
Peter
It’s not often we organ grinders get the recognition we deserve. Maybe that’s because people with your formidable forensic skills are few and far between.
Lots of people think the culprit was obvious, after the detective has announced “The butler did it!”. But only the detective noticed and understood the implications of the tiny clues along the way.
Only you noticed the tiny but tell-tale clues as to my identity. I can read and write. That narrows the field considerably, in an antipodean aviators’ forum. The things I say about the law are generally accurate. That rules out most of the remaining narrow field. I am usually the lone voice in defence of the legal department. Lay down misere.
Well done, Sherlock!
But we CASA people should stick together, jusapplhere. Don’t forget who throws you the peanuts.
Dragchute – nice try, but no kewpie doll I’m afraid.
Peter
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well I say!
Your comment about your demonstrable skills in reading and writing might well be tongue in cheek or might mirror an all pervading view in the legal department of which you are the self appointed protector.
All that of course does not diminish one jot what it is you have say on matters regulatory.
In my dotage, stroking my grey beard however, I pause to wonder as to if elitist remarks, made however flippantly, are not symptomatic of a very real problem.
IT'S VERY HARD TO HIT THE MONKEYS IN THE CAGE IF YOU THROW THE PEANUTS FROM THE TOP OF YOUR IVORY TOWER.
Your comment about your demonstrable skills in reading and writing might well be tongue in cheek or might mirror an all pervading view in the legal department of which you are the self appointed protector.
All that of course does not diminish one jot what it is you have say on matters regulatory.
In my dotage, stroking my grey beard however, I pause to wonder as to if elitist remarks, made however flippantly, are not symptomatic of a very real problem.
IT'S VERY HARD TO HIT THE MONKEYS IN THE CAGE IF YOU THROW THE PEANUTS FROM THE TOP OF YOUR IVORY TOWER.
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well I never.!
Snide, mon ami, methinks 'elitist remarks' are tongue in cheek.
I suspect one must develop such a rigourous mindset and "attitude" when surrounded by other equally well trained 'dobermanns', and I mean that in the nicest possible way , just waiting for the tiniest opening from whence to rip out your legal throat. If not for the intelectual/social challenge, then for money, or maybe both. I suspect that were I a lawyer I would not make much money.
Pilots compare d!ck and watch size, lawyers have a more incisive way of measuring themselves against others that can be confused by the bemused as elitist but achieves nonetheless, the same result. <img src="tongue.gif" border="0"> <img src="cool.gif" border="0"> .
I agree however that there is always a danger that both groups in striving for excellence or dominance within their profession lose sight of reality and default to hubristic mode. A tragic but universal human failing.
Creampuff
I am not sure that I needed to KNOW that and I hope we can continue to have some FUN and continue to learn from each other. <img src="smile.gif" border="0"> We should all, however, be grateful that you have taken the time to keep us on your version of the straight and narrow.
Snide, mon ami, methinks 'elitist remarks' are tongue in cheek.
I suspect one must develop such a rigourous mindset and "attitude" when surrounded by other equally well trained 'dobermanns', and I mean that in the nicest possible way
, just waiting for the tiniest opening from whence to rip out your legal throat. If not for the intelectual/social challenge, then for money, or maybe both. I suspect that were I a lawyer I would not make much money.Pilots compare d!ck and watch size, lawyers have a more incisive way of measuring themselves against others that can be confused by the bemused as elitist but achieves nonetheless, the same result. <img src="tongue.gif" border="0"> <img src="cool.gif" border="0"> .
I agree however that there is always a danger that both groups in striving for excellence or dominance within their profession lose sight of reality and default to hubristic mode. A tragic but universal human failing.
Creampuff
I am not sure that I needed to KNOW that and I hope we can continue to have some FUN and continue to learn from each other. <img src="smile.gif" border="0"> We should all, however, be grateful that you have taken the time to keep us on your version of the straight and narrow.
Ivoroy towers, cages, organ grinders, monkeys and peanuts!
I think this mixed, serial metaphor’s stuck its neck out a little too far, and broken the camel’s back.
Snide, I’m not who justapplhere suggests I am, any more than you’re sitting there stroking a grey beard.
Touche Gaunty. My penchant for tweaking the weaknesses of some contributors to this forum is, on occasions, a little unattractive. I just can’t help myself when people start playing “guess the identity”. Such a futile endeavour, and one that I shouldn't enjoy encouraging.
One of the wonders of the internet is that an acne-stippled geek from Hicksville USA can, with about 15 minutes' research, fool most of the surfers, most of the time.
I think this mixed, serial metaphor’s stuck its neck out a little too far, and broken the camel’s back.
Snide, I’m not who justapplhere suggests I am, any more than you’re sitting there stroking a grey beard.
Touche Gaunty. My penchant for tweaking the weaknesses of some contributors to this forum is, on occasions, a little unattractive. I just can’t help myself when people start playing “guess the identity”. Such a futile endeavour, and one that I shouldn't enjoy encouraging.
One of the wonders of the internet is that an acne-stippled geek from Hicksville USA can, with about 15 minutes' research, fool most of the surfers, most of the time.
