The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions The place for students, instructors and charter guys in Oz, NZ and the rest of Oceania.

Merged: CASA Regulatory Reform

Old 17th Jul 2012, 22:26
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: North Queensland, Australia
Posts: 2,980
Received 14 Likes on 7 Posts
That's exactly why they need to make the regs more accessible, perhaps with a 'FAQ' section, seeing as you can get them online easily these days.

Q. Can I fit commonly available cargo restraints (eg cargo nets purchased from hardware stores and the like) in the baggage compartment of my light aircraft?

A. Yes, as long as they are capable of restraining the cargo with a 4 g vertical acceleration, 2 g longitudinally ... (or whatever the real answer is). Restraints should be tested with a spring balance to establish a maximum weight capability. Refer to CAAP bla bla bla
Arm out the window is offline  
Old 17th Jul 2012, 23:32
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Australia
Age: 74
Posts: 314
Received 2 Likes on 1 Post
I asked a simple question, Do I still have a SCPL?

Dear Mr xxx
I refer to your telephone conversation with Diane Shelback on xxxx regarding the validity of your Senior Commercial Pilot Licence.

I am pleased to confirm that your Senior Commercial Pilot Licence Number xxxxxx is valid. This means that you are Authorised to exercise all of the privileges of this licence as specified in Civil Aviation Regulation 56(1)(a)(iv) of Statutory Rule 1988 No.158.

The grounds upon which this declaration is made are:

a) your Senior Commercial Pilot Licence is one to which Regulation 43 of Statutory Rule No 279 of 1992 applies.

b) although you have been issued with a First Class Airline Transport Pilot Licence, your First Class Airline Transport Pilot Licence is not a "new air transport pilot (aeroplane) licence" as mentioned in paragraph 43.2(b) of subregulation 43.2 of Statutory Rule No 279 of 1992. The significance of this point is that the issue of your ATPL has not nullified your SCPL. The considerations which lead to your ATPL not being regarded as a new ATPL are:

i) the term "new air transport pilot (aeroplane) licence" is not defined in Statutory Rule No 279 of 1992.

ii) a comparison of the definitions of new and old licences in subregulation 35.1 of that Statutory Rule shows that the determining factor as to whether a licence is a new or old licence is the regulation under which the licence was issued; licences issued under subregulation 55B of the old regulations are old licences, and licences issued under new subregulation 5.09(1) are new licences

iii) your ATPL was issued in xxxx, which date was before new subregulation 5.09(1) existed, and therefore your ATPL, is not a new licence.

In regard to your old Senior Commercial Pilot Licence, my duty of care obligee me to alert you to the following aspects:

i) while the licence is valid and you may exercise all of the privileges of the licence, these privilege do not include privileges pertaining to any rating that was endorsed on the licence unless that rating has been renewed and is current. Under the provisions of regulation 59 of the Civil Aviation Regulations of Statutory Rule 1988 No 158, ratings expired at the effluxion of the time periods specified in Civil Aviation Orders. I mention this particularly because in the Civil Aviation Act 1988 a licence is defined as including any rating that is endorsed on the licence. I do not want you to be under the misconception that the privileges of the licence include privileges pertaining to a rating endorsed on the licence; and ii) subregulation 66(2) of the Civil Aviation Regulations of Statutory Rule 1988 No 158 specified that "the types and categories of aircraft for which a licence is valid shall be specified by endorsement in the licence". This means that you may fly, as a privilege of your Senior Commercial Pilot Licence No. xxxxx, only those aircraft that are endorsed in that licence. An endorsement of an aircraft type in another licence, (e.g. your First Class Airline Transport Pilot Licence), or in your pilot log-book under the provisions of CAR 5.23 (2), does not entitle you to fly that aircraft as a privilege of your Senior Commercial Pilot Licence. An endorsement in your pilot log-book does not apply to your SCPL because under tho terms of CAR Part 5, a SCPL is not a flight crew licence (see CAR 2, and CAR
5.08).

Should you have any further queries in this matter, please do not hesitate to contact Graeme Smith, telephone (06) 268 4393 or facsimile (06) 268 4426.


Yours sincerely,

BOB COOK
Manager Flight Crew Licensing
Directorate of Aviation Safety Regulation
dogcharlietree is offline  
Old 18th Jul 2012, 00:15
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: on the edge
Posts: 823
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I asked a simple question, Do I still have a SCPL?
If you can't understand the simple answer they gave, perhaps you should hand your licence back. I do not believe that a ATPL holder would have problems with the answer.
blackhand is offline  
Old 18th Jul 2012, 02:01
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: North Queensland, Australia
Posts: 2,980
Received 14 Likes on 7 Posts
ratings expired at the effluxion of the time periods specified in Civil Aviation Orders
It is preposterous to postulate that there are any obfuscative passages in the Aviation Regulations of this fine nation, and I will expand on this prima-facie observation prior to the effluxion of my lunch break.
Arm out the window is offline  
Old 18th Jul 2012, 02:38
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,733
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
What's the matter Blackie missing your old combatant Kharon? Don't worry mate the ghost of K is still watching over you whilst you drown your sorrows at the local, I'm sure he'll make the return ferry trip when your time is up!

Meanwhile Blackie it appears your still rubbing shoulders with Creamy at the 'Mutual Blinkered Horse Brigade'....that should keep you somewhat amused between opening and last drinks..cause other than Frank you might as well be the invisible bloke in that musty corner of the bar!
Sarcs is offline  
Old 18th Jul 2012, 03:00
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I resemble that!
Frank Arouet is offline  
Old 18th Jul 2012, 06:35
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: on the edge
Posts: 823
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
@sarcs
Surely you see the irony of what you just said.
Or maybe pilots don't understand irony.
blackhand is offline  
Old 18th Jul 2012, 07:52
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Most pilot's can't spell ironie. Ironye. Ironboard, (fkucit), let alone understand what it means. Can you please rephrase that?

Red is on the left if you are sitting in the aeroplane, that means port because it's the same colour, green is what you look like if you fly in black clouds. Sorry just thinking out aloud.... Oh fkuck that to hard. Which brings me to another point.... but that's off topic. I don't remember eating that!
Frank Arouet is offline  
Old 19th Jul 2012, 05:35
  #29 (permalink)  
Man Bilong Balus long PNG
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Looking forward to returning to Japan soon but in the meantime continuing the never ending search for a bad bottle of Red!
Age: 69
Posts: 2,965
Received 92 Likes on 53 Posts
Arm out the window; You're Kevin Rudd, aren't you!

As for the subject of this thread; A Lawyer aquaintance of mine once spent a few hours going through my copy of the ANOs as they were at the time and afterwards stated that in some instances only a Lawyer would be able to understand them.

He also claimed that he could fine several direct contradictions, ie one reg says no you can't and another reg said yes you can!

And how much did you say has been spent on the rewrite so far, Taily?
Pinky the pilot is offline  
Old 19th Jul 2012, 05:45
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: North Queensland, Australia
Posts: 2,980
Received 14 Likes on 7 Posts
Arm out the window; You're Kevin Rudd, aren't you!
Never mention him and me in the same sentence! Actually, Ruddy would probably say a few words in Mandarin as well, to add to the overall effect...
Arm out the window is offline  
Old 19th Jul 2012, 22:14
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: moon
Posts: 3,564
Received 89 Likes on 32 Posts
And the eternal refrain from the bureaucrats and lawyers:

"It means what it says".
Sunfish is offline  
Old 19th Jul 2012, 22:24
  #32 (permalink)  
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 1996
Location: Utopia
Posts: 7,414
Received 198 Likes on 110 Posts
And how much did you say has been spent on the rewrite so far, Taily?
Two months short of 23 years and they admit to burning over $200 million on the exercise. Don't worry, it is only our insignificant tax money.
tail wheel is offline  
Old 20th Jul 2012, 01:51
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Victoria
Posts: 750
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Quote:
As I read it, it's saying "there is (or may be) another Part or Subpart dealing with the kind of authorisation in question, so be aware the requirements in this subpart are not the only ones."
Exactly, no ambiguity


Blackhand said: So, why doesn't it say that?


"Plain English" is the instruction given to Parliamentary Counsel and it ought apply to whomever is drafting this stuff.

I'm a lawyer and I had to scratch my head to work out what the hell the author was saying. It shouldn't take a precedent in the High Court to interpret something that should be relatively straight forward.

The definition given to particular words, such as "terrain" should be dealt with in a definitions section if the ordinary common meaning isn't deemed sufficient although, God help us, it ought be clear enough.

kaz

kaz

Last edited by kaz3g; 20th Jul 2012 at 01:52.
kaz3g is offline  
Old 20th Jul 2012, 02:47
  #34 (permalink)  
Man Bilong Balus long PNG
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Looking forward to returning to Japan soon but in the meantime continuing the never ending search for a bad bottle of Red!
Age: 69
Posts: 2,965
Received 92 Likes on 53 Posts
Never mention him and me in the same sentence
A thousand apologies Sir.

and they admit to burning over $200 million on the exercise
So I wonder how the sales of BMWs and Porsches have been in Canberra?
Pinky the pilot is offline  
Old 20th Jul 2012, 07:13
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: on the edge
Posts: 823
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I'm a lawyer and I had to scratch my head to work out what the hell the author was saying.
And I'm a dumbass mechanic that failed to matriculate, and yet I can understand it.

Last edited by blackhand; 20th Jul 2012 at 07:16.
blackhand is offline  
Old 20th Jul 2012, 08:01
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Salt Lake City Utah
Posts: 3,079
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I suspect you may have failed to matriculate around the same time I failed to matriculate. It was an era in which grammar and comprehension were taught in Primary school, to a higher standard than is reached by most university graduates these days. Sad really.
Creampuff is offline  
Old 20th Jul 2012, 13:41
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
CASA sends the draft legislation to the Attorney General's department to be converted into the text we see in the Act and the Regulations.
foqa is offline  
Old 20th Jul 2012, 22:01
  #38 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Victoria
Age: 62
Posts: 984
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The fact that our aviation regs are posted on the Attorney General's website rather than the CASA website says something, doesn't it?
CASA have allowed the legal fraternity to get theor claws into something that should be reasonably simple to understand and work with, and turn it into something that requires a lawyer to navigate to. How fortuitous for them!
However as Blackhand hinted at, isn't this just another symptom of the increasingly litigious society we live in? The vast majority of us are law abiding and sensible aviators, but it appears the regs are engineered to cater for the minority of idiots that fcuk it up for the rest of us.
Arm out the window; You're Kevin Rudd, aren't you!
Now that's funny!
Captain Sand Dune is offline  
Old 20th Jul 2012, 23:49
  #39 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Salt Lake City Utah
Posts: 3,079
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The fact that our aviation regs are posted on the Attorney General's website rather than the CASA website says something, doesn't it?
CASA have allowed the legal fraternity to get theor claws into something …
The lack of understanding evident in that statement is breathtaking but, unfortunately, ubiquitous.

CASA is created by one sentence in a law passed by the parliament.

CASA’s powers and functions are specified in laws passed by the parliament.

Delegated legislation must be made in accordance with laws passed by the parliament and the policies of the government of the day, then tabled for disallowance by the parliament. Regulations are made by the Governor-General, on recommendation from the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure. Only CAOs and small number of other legislative instruments are made by CASA. But they all have to be made, published and tabled in accordance with the same laws and policies.

The reason every aspect of daily life in Australia is being slowly regulated to death is that Australians keep electing dumb and dumber governments who are very happy to keep pumping out laws as fast as they can be made. Governments consider the making of a law to be an ‘achievement’ and ‘progress’. (Look at what the current government claims to be among its successes: the passage of thousands of pages of primary legislation that ultimately do only one of two things: tax the populace or create new criminal offences.)

The reason governments get away with it is because punters like CSD blame the regulators.

Last edited by Creampuff; 20th Jul 2012 at 23:50.
Creampuff is offline  
Old 21st Jul 2012, 01:56
  #40 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: More than 300km from SY, Australia
Posts: 817
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
English and Clarity??

Just while we are at it, lets have a look at a real life regulation and compare the English in the CAR and that in the FAR's:

CIVIL AVIATION REGULATIONS 1988 - REG 157

Low flying

(1) The pilot in command of an aircraft must not fly the aircraft over:
(a) any city, town or populous area at a height lower than 1,000 feet; or
(b) any other area at a height lower than 500 feet.
Penalty: 50 penalty units.
(2) An offence against subregulation (1) is an offence of strict liability.
Note For strict liability , see section 6.1 of the Criminal Code .
(3) A height specified in subregulation (1) is the height above the highest point of the terrain, and any object on it, within a radius of:
(a) in the case of an aircraft other than a helicopter -- 600 metres; or
(b) in the case of a helicopter -- 300 metres;
from a point on the terrain vertically below the aircraft.
(3A) Paragraph (1) (a) does not apply in respect of a helicopter flying at a designated altitude within an access lane details of which have been published in the AIP or NOTAMS for use by helicopters arriving at or departing from a specified place.
(4) Subregulation (1) does not apply if:
(a) through stress of weather or any other unavoidable cause it is essential that a lower height be maintained; or
(b) the aircraft is engaged in private operations or aerial work operations, being operations that require low flying, and the owner or operator of the aircraft has received from CASA either a general permit for all flights or a specific permit for the particular flight to be made at a lower height while engaged in such operations; or
(c) the pilot of the aircraft is engaged in flying training and flies over a part of a flying training area in respect of which low flying is authorised by CASA under subregulation 141 (1); or
(d) the pilot of the aircraft is engaged in a baulked approach procedure, or the practice of such procedure under the supervision of a flight instructor or a check pilot; or
(e) the aircraft is flying in the course of actually taking-off or landing at an aerodrome; or
(f) the pilot of the aircraft is engaged in:
(i) a search; or
(ii) a rescue; or
(iii) dropping supplies;
in a search and rescue operation; or
(g) the aircraft is a helicopter:
(i) operated by, or for the purposes of, the Australian Federal Police or the police force of a State or Territory; and
(ii) engaged in law enforcement operations; or
(h) the pilot of the aircraft is engaged in an operation which requires the dropping of packages or other articles or substances in accordance with directions issued by CASA.

AND the comparative FAR:

§ 91.119 Minimum safe altitudes: General.

Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:

(a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.

(b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft.

(c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.

(d) Helicopters. Helicopters may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section if the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface. In addition, each person operating a helicopter shall comply with any routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the Administrator.

Just a bit easier to understand
Up-into-the-air is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.