Consultation Draft Part 91.
Thread Starter
Thank you for your comment Leadsled.
"Thirty Minutes cruise" fuel in what I may possibly acquire is about Nine litres. If I ever get down to the last Nine litres, then prosecution will be a blessing.
"Thirty Minutes cruise" fuel in what I may possibly acquire is about Nine litres. If I ever get down to the last Nine litres, then prosecution will be a blessing.
"Indeed we are required by the Civil Aviation Act to conduct "full and effective consultation and communication with all interested parties on aviation safety issues".
From the Director of Aviation Safety
John McCormick
The CASA Briefing
Your monthly CASA update
March 2011
NOWHERE there do I read anything but the words 'safety issues'!!!
Now, just where do the 'commercial' issues that are being complained about
on these forums come from.
A professional (doctor, mechanic, photographer etc etc), private pilot, uses an aeroplane, registered in the private category, to carry himself and his required tools to go to a particular site / location / place, and do a particular job of his / her profession....
Many an 'outback' doctor, vet., (or a mechanic, or a whatever profession / skill) would fall into this category.
Are these 'issues' mentioned in the said 'Civil Aviation Act'..??
How specific is the Act? - 'Tis indeed a looong time since I even had a look at it.
Is that what I'm reading here..??
Cheers
From the Director of Aviation Safety
John McCormick
The CASA Briefing
Your monthly CASA update
March 2011
NOWHERE there do I read anything but the words 'safety issues'!!!
Now, just where do the 'commercial' issues that are being complained about
on these forums come from.
A professional (doctor, mechanic, photographer etc etc), private pilot, uses an aeroplane, registered in the private category, to carry himself and his required tools to go to a particular site / location / place, and do a particular job of his / her profession....
Many an 'outback' doctor, vet., (or a mechanic, or a whatever profession / skill) would fall into this category.
Are these 'issues' mentioned in the said 'Civil Aviation Act'..??
How specific is the Act? - 'Tis indeed a looong time since I even had a look at it.
Is that what I'm reading here..??
Cheers
What you read about here is the tragic results of decades of neglect of the Aviation Industry by Governments, and the distinct lack of governance and common sensibility in CASA.
CASA is its own wild dog, barking mad at "safety" shadows.. and ignoring Government requirements, Ministerial directives, and Board policies with negilgent disregard and criminal disdain.
And totally ignoring the needs of the Industry in the process.
."To Hell with the Rules" of regulation, and the whys and wherefores of "safety outcome " based regs.
So, you, me, GA, pvt flying and the whole damn country are poorer for it.
Will it be ever thus? Going on the last 30 years, its not a good look.!
CASA is its own wild dog, barking mad at "safety" shadows.. and ignoring Government requirements, Ministerial directives, and Board policies with negilgent disregard and criminal disdain.
And totally ignoring the needs of the Industry in the process.
."To Hell with the Rules" of regulation, and the whys and wherefores of "safety outcome " based regs.
So, you, me, GA, pvt flying and the whole damn country are poorer for it.
Will it be ever thus? Going on the last 30 years, its not a good look.!
One of my favourite activities is taking a biplane up for some aerobatics near the end of the day on a beautiful Victorian Autumn day. Clear blue skies and totally calm. Stop the aeroplane and get out well before last light.
But just imagine what the CASA guy would say to me when I got down if these new rules go ahead.
There was no evidence that I assessed the weather, checked take-off and landing performance, checked weight and cg. I must admit that the rules don't require that any paperwork be retained as evidence - but the CASA guy didn't see me do it so I need to prove that I did.
I didn't perform the pre-flight inspection per the flight manual - did not look inside wheel fairings for mud.
Took off, birds in the way so turned a little early. Another 50 penalty points.
I did some aerobatics. Flew numerous tracks contrary to the specified cruising level for a VFR flight.
Stopped it on the taxi-way in front of the hangar then went inside to look for some-one to help me push it in.
That's when the CASA would collar me.
Well before last light but the sun had just gone down as I taxied in. Poor visibility he said and I needed cockpit lighting, navigation lights, anti-collision light, landing light and torch. Day VFR and the aeroplane doesn't have any lights at all - doesn't matter he said, you broke the rule, it was poor visibility (guess who decides what poor visibility is) for the last couple of minutes.
Been talking to him for a while now and it is quite dark outside. The aeroplane is now a danger to other aircraft on the taxi-way. Another 50 penalty points.
Let me see - that is a maximun fine of about $99,000 for one short flight.
But just imagine what the CASA guy would say to me when I got down if these new rules go ahead.
There was no evidence that I assessed the weather, checked take-off and landing performance, checked weight and cg. I must admit that the rules don't require that any paperwork be retained as evidence - but the CASA guy didn't see me do it so I need to prove that I did.
I didn't perform the pre-flight inspection per the flight manual - did not look inside wheel fairings for mud.
Took off, birds in the way so turned a little early. Another 50 penalty points.
I did some aerobatics. Flew numerous tracks contrary to the specified cruising level for a VFR flight.
Stopped it on the taxi-way in front of the hangar then went inside to look for some-one to help me push it in.
That's when the CASA would collar me.
Well before last light but the sun had just gone down as I taxied in. Poor visibility he said and I needed cockpit lighting, navigation lights, anti-collision light, landing light and torch. Day VFR and the aeroplane doesn't have any lights at all - doesn't matter he said, you broke the rule, it was poor visibility (guess who decides what poor visibility is) for the last couple of minutes.
Been talking to him for a while now and it is quite dark outside. The aeroplane is now a danger to other aircraft on the taxi-way. Another 50 penalty points.
Let me see - that is a maximun fine of about $99,000 for one short flight.
Thread Starter
Djpil perfectly encapsulates the issue.
What's worse is that these are criminal, not civil, offences.
The format, structure and language of the latest consultation draft indicates that CASA has no intention whatsoever of implementing any regulatory reform.
By the way, how do you define "Thirty minutes cruise fuel" for a self launched motor glider, possibly electrically powered?
What's worse is that these are criminal, not civil, offences.
The format, structure and language of the latest consultation draft indicates that CASA has no intention whatsoever of implementing any regulatory reform.
By the way, how do you define "Thirty minutes cruise fuel" for a self launched motor glider, possibly electrically powered?
Easy, peasy.....
91.2000X
(1) The pilot of a motor glider commits an offence if he or she, flies a motor glider, regardless of its source of motive force: reciprocating piston engine, turbine engine, or electric motor, if...
(a) at the termination of the flight the..
(i) fuel tank does not contain sufficient fuel remaining for 30 minutes of flight at normal cruise speed, or
(ii) the battery pack for the electric motor does not retain sufficient charge to operate that motor for 30 minutes at sustainable cruise speed.
(iii) lands the motor glider as a non-powered glider, having no motive means once on the ground.
(iv) Failure to comply with 91.2000X (1) (a) (i) or (ii) or(iii) is an offence under the Act
This offence is a criminal offence of strict liability, see Sec. 6.1 of the criminal code.
50 penalty points. (Or jail, preferably)
Note: It is proposed to make an NPRM to advise Australia that a safety regulations will be made regarding motor gliders that have a self-launching capability only, eg; as in a solid fuel, one shot rocket launch that gives the glider no further powered flight sustainability, thus avoiding the safety requirements of 30 mins fuel on landing and not landing "motor-less".
CASA is not sure that this does not constitute an extreme danger to the public on the ground. A Panel of Experts within the Authority will convene
to decide if this sort of activity should not be banned.
Until CASA is satisfied , (bet you've heard that before)that an aircraft landing without its own means of motive force is deemed to be safe, this sort of activity cannot proceed until a new regulation set is in place.
THe NPRM will be issued in 2013 and a final rule is expected to be made by 2019.
What happens after that wont matter because the asteroid heading our way in 2019 might NOT bypass Earth.!
Jeez, reg writing is fun, maybe Ive missed my calling.
Let me do some.. while CASA has got GA on its knees, I could cobble up some regs that would really kick it in the head while its down, and put GA out of our collective miseries.
Ooops .. too late!.. CASA are already in the process of doing that.
(1) The pilot of a motor glider commits an offence if he or she, flies a motor glider, regardless of its source of motive force: reciprocating piston engine, turbine engine, or electric motor, if...
(a) at the termination of the flight the..
(i) fuel tank does not contain sufficient fuel remaining for 30 minutes of flight at normal cruise speed, or
(ii) the battery pack for the electric motor does not retain sufficient charge to operate that motor for 30 minutes at sustainable cruise speed.
(iii) lands the motor glider as a non-powered glider, having no motive means once on the ground.
(iv) Failure to comply with 91.2000X (1) (a) (i) or (ii) or(iii) is an offence under the Act
This offence is a criminal offence of strict liability, see Sec. 6.1 of the criminal code.
50 penalty points. (Or jail, preferably)
Note: It is proposed to make an NPRM to advise Australia that a safety regulations will be made regarding motor gliders that have a self-launching capability only, eg; as in a solid fuel, one shot rocket launch that gives the glider no further powered flight sustainability, thus avoiding the safety requirements of 30 mins fuel on landing and not landing "motor-less".
CASA is not sure that this does not constitute an extreme danger to the public on the ground. A Panel of Experts within the Authority will convene
to decide if this sort of activity should not be banned.
Until CASA is satisfied , (bet you've heard that before)that an aircraft landing without its own means of motive force is deemed to be safe, this sort of activity cannot proceed until a new regulation set is in place.
THe NPRM will be issued in 2013 and a final rule is expected to be made by 2019.
What happens after that wont matter because the asteroid heading our way in 2019 might NOT bypass Earth.!
Jeez, reg writing is fun, maybe Ive missed my calling.
Let me do some.. while CASA has got GA on its knees, I could cobble up some regs that would really kick it in the head while its down, and put GA out of our collective miseries.
Ooops .. too late!.. CASA are already in the process of doing that.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Sydney
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another bizarre thing:
China announced in November the opening of airspace for GA. In the next 5 years the experts say the fleet will grow from 600 light aircraft to 10000.
So while China is pulling the wall down, CASA is doing it's best to discourage any form of aviation. Genius, just genius. Imagine how much export money is going down the drain here.
Sc
China announced in November the opening of airspace for GA. In the next 5 years the experts say the fleet will grow from 600 light aircraft to 10000.
So while China is pulling the wall down, CASA is doing it's best to discourage any form of aviation. Genius, just genius. Imagine how much export money is going down the drain here.
Sc
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: inner suburbia
Posts: 370
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the end is nigh.
Even though http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-reporting...hlight=casr+91
comments to CASA about their "Consultation Draft of CASR part 91" will close on Tues 31 May 11.
There are more than 300 pages of 'legalise' language and way too many of the sections contain 'the pilot commits an offense of strict liability', but still., it will affect us all, so let 'em know what you think.
comments to CASA about their "Consultation Draft of CASR part 91" will close on Tues 31 May 11.
There are more than 300 pages of 'legalise' language and way too many of the sections contain 'the pilot commits an offense of strict liability', but still., it will affect us all, so let 'em know what you think.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: inner suburbia
Posts: 370
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
91.760 Other equipment
Gyroscopic instrument power
(2) For a flight of the aircraft under the IFR, the aircraft must have:
(a) an alternative power supply for the heading indicator (directional gyroscope), the turn and slip indicator, and each attitude indicator system; and
(b) a means of indicating whether power is available to powered instruments (including air-driven instruments).
(2) For a flight of the aircraft under the IFR, the aircraft must have:
(a) an alternative power supply for the heading indicator (directional gyroscope), the turn and slip indicator, and each attitude indicator system; and
(b) a means of indicating whether power is available to powered instruments (including air-driven instruments).
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
(a) an alternative power supply for the heading indicator (directional gyroscope), the turn and slip indicator, and each attitude indicator system; and
Short of a backup vacuum as you mentioned, there aren't many other options, other than a vacuum AH and an electric AH too.
