New CASA game? - Operations Specifications
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Queensland Australia
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
New CASA game? - Operations Specifications
Anyone one else come across the new CASA game in town, the "AOC Operations Specifications"?. Seems that pages of "Conditions" are being added to renewed AOCs some of which are way above and beyond the requirements of the CAO's and CAR's. Appears to be a wish list of conditions some CASA individuals consider should apply to certain operators, but not others.
In many respects, Ops Specs are a positive thing for the operator, as they are approved when the AOC is issued. They form a hard and fast set of rules for the operation that CASA cannot vary on a whim or "interpret" to suit CASA. Any amendment or variation necessarily requires the input of the operator.
I'd rather have Ops Specs than be subject to a "Manual of Standards" that CASA can vary at any time without consultation.
I'd rather have Ops Specs than be subject to a "Manual of Standards" that CASA can vary at any time without consultation.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: In an Airplane
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
all big operators in the US have "Ops Specs" laying out rules for their operations.
Its chapter 3 of any company operations manual.
Lays out what you can and can't do, any deviations from FARS etc.
Very handy.
Privateer01 is absolutely correct, all commercial operators who hold an AOC have them right down to the single pilot,single aircraft operator.
There are many pages that generally restate conditions/requirements already in the FARs and others that impose stricter conditions. This is because the FARs are far less restrictive and complex than the CAOs, CARs & AIP here in Australia.
Alternate requirements are a classic example, the FARs have 1-2 paragraphs that basically cover weather parameters only so the OPSPECS for commercial operators cover navaid requirements that here in Aust are already covered in the AIP.
Here in Aust due to our complex and somewhat onerous rules and regs the OPSPECS should not significantly add to an operators already existing compliance requirements.
Each OPSPEC page has to be signed by the issuing inspector and the operator.
However if the operator disagrees with the issuance of an OPSPEC and refuses to sign and comply but it is deemed mandatory for the operators AOC then he wont have a choice.
As Chimbu said though the contents are not open to" interpretation" by individual inspectors, nor are they written in legalese, well at least not in the US.
There are many pages that generally restate conditions/requirements already in the FARs and others that impose stricter conditions. This is because the FARs are far less restrictive and complex than the CAOs, CARs & AIP here in Australia.
Alternate requirements are a classic example, the FARs have 1-2 paragraphs that basically cover weather parameters only so the OPSPECS for commercial operators cover navaid requirements that here in Aust are already covered in the AIP.
Here in Aust due to our complex and somewhat onerous rules and regs the OPSPECS should not significantly add to an operators already existing compliance requirements.
Each OPSPEC page has to be signed by the issuing inspector and the operator.
However if the operator disagrees with the issuance of an OPSPEC and refuses to sign and comply but it is deemed mandatory for the operators AOC then he wont have a choice.
As Chimbu said though the contents are not open to" interpretation" by individual inspectors, nor are they written in legalese, well at least not in the US.
Last edited by aussie027; 20th Dec 2010 at 04:21.
