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 16th Jul 2012, 23:12
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: More than 300km from SY, Australia
Posts: 817
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Merged: CASA Regulatory Reform

We were told that the new regs would improve things aviation.

Try this for a Sir Humphrey!!


Subpart 11.B Applications for authorisations

11.020 Effect of this Subpart

The requirements of this Subpart in relation to an application for a particular kind of authorisation are in addition to any requirements of the Part or Subpart that deals with the kind of authorisation.

11.025 Application of Part to authorised persons

If these Regulations allow an application for an authorisation to be made to an authorised person, a reference in this Part to CASA includes, in relation to such an application, an authorised person to whom such an application is made.
Well???
Up-into-the-air is offline  
Old 17th Jul 2012, 00:49
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: The Zoo
Posts: 335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Post

(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 make attempt to try to comprehend or understand any or all in whole or in part of the herein mention Civil Aviation Safety Regulations, except as authorised by the CASA.
Penalty: 50 penalty units.
(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 Safety Regulations, they must immediately, within three (3) days notify CASA in writing.
Penalty: 50 penalty units.
(3) Upon receipt of the above mentioned notice of impending comprehension, CASA will immediately rewrite the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations in such a manner as to eliminate any further comprehension hazards.
(4) CASA may, at their option, require the offending pilot, or pilots, to attend remedial instruction in the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations until such time that the pilot is too confused to be capable of understanding anything.
(5) An offence against subregulation (1) or (2) is an offence of strict liability.
Note For strict liability, see section 6.1 of the Criminal Code.
kalavo is offline  
Old 17th Jul 2012, 00:57
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: North Queensland, Australia
Posts: 2,980
Received 15 Likes on 8 Posts
Incredible, aren't they?

My guess is they draft something like this:

"The pilot in command must ensure all relevant covers and safety flags are removed and stowed before taking off."

then send it to the legal team, who change it to:

"An individual who, for the purposes of these paragraphs and sub-paragraphs, is authorised by an organisation, or is him or herself empowered to authorise him or herself to operate an aeroplane or rotorcraft as pilot-in-command, shall not allow that aeroplane or rotorcraft to move from a resting condition for the purposes of leaving the ground or water, or in the case of an amphibian aeroplane or rotorcraft, ground and/or water as appropriate, unless that individual has ensured that each item (including but not limited to covers, protective devices, streamers, and flags) made or purchased for the purpose of protecting essential items of equipment (including but not limited to probes, vents, intakes, exhausts, wicks, cooling systems and drains) has been removed from its operative position and placed in a container, locker, pocket or restraint approved for the purpose of holding that item, or group of items, for the duration of the flight and with a degree of security appropriate for the longitudinal, lateral and vertical accelerative forces that may be experienced at any time during that flight, caused by either the normal motion of the aircraft or the motion of the atmosphere as it impacts on that aircraft."
Arm out the window is offline  
Old 17th Jul 2012, 01:11
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Mydadsbag
Posts: 1,114
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Couldn't agree more!
No more Roman numerals either!!!

Bbbzbzbzbzbzbzbzbzbzzzzzz

Last edited by Mr.Buzzy; 17th Jul 2012 at 01:13.
Mr.Buzzy is offline  
Old 17th Jul 2012, 02:14
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Under the Equator
Posts: 605
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
A good example of how nutty our Aviation regulators are;
Compare our many books of regs and rules to the simple and plain English USA publication - FAR/AIMS.
Rich-Fine-Green is offline  
Old 17th Jul 2012, 03:08
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: on the edge
Posts: 823
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Well???

Yelling certainly helps doesn't it???
It is simple English and you are purposely looking for ambiguity.

then send it to the legal team, who change it to:
And that would be because some people go to the AAT and claim that "terrain" doesn't include water.

Last edited by blackhand; 17th Jul 2012 at 03:29.
blackhand is offline  
Old 17th Jul 2012, 03:32
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: North Queensland, Australia
Posts: 2,980
Received 15 Likes on 8 Posts
I'm sure we can all nut out the meaning of regs like this given time, but it must be possible to lay them out in such a way that the meanings are more readily apparent.

The requirements of this Subpart in relation to an application for a particular kind of authorisation are in addition to any requirements of the Part or Subpart that deals with the kind of authorisation.
That's hardly simple English. 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."

Something like that that tells you what they're actually driving at in a straightforward way would help immeasurably.

Maybe we need an official book that tells you in plain language what your responsibilities are, as well as the legalese book that applies in a court of law.

I don't mean something that a third party such as a flying school or maintenance training organisation writes out as their interpretation of the regs, but something released by CASA that's aimed to translate the legal stuff into real world language (with the clear caveat that the legal stuff is binding). A kind of 'what the hell we meant when we wrote this section' guide.

Last edited by Arm out the window; 17th Jul 2012 at 03:38.
Arm out the window is offline  
Old 17th Jul 2012, 03:49
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: on the edge
Posts: 823
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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 is offline  
Old 17th Jul 2012, 05:02
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Salt Lake City Utah
Posts: 3,079
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Ah yes, the oh-so-easy-to-understand FARs.

What does ‘cross-country time’ mean for the purpose of meeting the aeronautical experience requirements for a sport pilot certificate with powered parachute privileges?

Your time starts….NOW:
(4) Cross-country time means—
(i) Except as provided in paragraphs (b)(4)(ii) through (b)(4)(vi) of this section, time acquired during flight—
(A) Conducted by a person who holds a pilot certificate;
(B) Conducted in an aircraft;
(C) That includes a landing at a point other than the point of departure; and
(D) That involves the use of dead reckoning, pilotage, electronic navigation aids, radio aids, or other navigation systems to navigate to the landing point.
(ii) For the purpose of meeting the aeronautical experience requirements (except for a rotorcraft category rating), for a private pilot certificate (except for a powered parachute category rating), a commercial pilot certificate, or an instrument rating, or for the purpose of exercising recreational pilot privileges (except in a rotorcraft) under §61.101 (c), time acquired during a flight—
(A) Conducted in an appropriate aircraft;
(B) That includes a point of landing that was at least a straight-line distance of more than 50 nautical miles from the original point of departure; and
(C) That involves the use of dead reckoning, pilotage, electronic navigation aids, radio aids, or other navigation systems to navigate to the landing point.
(iii) For the purpose of meeting the aeronautical experience requirements for a sport pilot certificate (except for powered parachute privileges), time acquired during a flight conducted in an appropriate aircraft that—
(A) Includes a point of landing at least a straight line distance of more than 25 nautical miles from the original point of departure; and
(B) Involves, as applicable, the use of dead reckoning; pilotage; electronic navigation aids; radio aids; or other navigation systems to navigate to the landing point.
(iv) For the purpose of meeting the aeronautical experience requirements for a sport pilot certificate with powered parachute privileges or a private pilot certificate with a powered parachute category rating, time acquired during a flight conducted in an appropriate aircraft that—
(A) Includes a point of landing at least a straight line distance of more than 15 nautical miles from the original point of departure; and
(B) Involves, as applicable, the use of dead reckoning; pilotage; electronic navigation aids; radio aids; or other navigation systems to navigate to the landing point.
(v) For the purpose of meeting the aeronautical experience requirements for any pilot certificate with a rotorcraft category rating or an instrument-helicopter rating, or for the purpose of exercising recreational pilot privileges, in a rotorcraft, under §61.101(c), time acquired during a flight—
(A) Conducted in an appropriate aircraft;
(B) That includes a point of landing that was at least a straight-line distance of more than 25 nautical miles from the original point of departure; and
(C) That involves the use of dead reckoning, pilotage, electronic navigation aids, radio aids, or other navigation systems to navigate to the landing point.
(vi) For the purpose of meeting the aeronautical experience requirements for an airline transport pilot certificate (except with a rotorcraft category rating), time acquired during a flight—
(A) Conducted in an appropriate aircraft;
(B) That is at least a straight-line distance of more than 50 nautical miles from the original point of departure; and
(C) That involves the use of dead reckoning, pilotage, electronic navigation aids, radio aids, or other navigation systems.
(vii) For a military pilot who qualifies for a commercial pilot certificate (except with a rotorcraft category rating) under §61.73 of this part, time acquired during a flight—
(A) Conducted in an appropriate aircraft;
(B) That is at least a straight-line distance of more than 50 nautical miles from the original point of departure; and
(C) That involves the use of dead reckoning, pilotage, electronic navigation aids, radio aids, or other navigation systems.
A 600 word definition that starts with the word “except”.
Creampuff is offline  
Old 17th Jul 2012, 05:33
  #10 (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
It is simple English and you are purposely looking for ambiguity.
It's not simple English.

Get a grip Blackie.
Frank Arouet is offline  
Old 17th Jul 2012, 06:31
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Wentworth
Age: 60
Posts: 212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The frightening thing is that some of you understand it and know how to write it.
Wallsofchina is offline  
Old 17th Jul 2012, 06:36
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Straya
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
From DM flyer:
Proposed Civil Aviation Regulation Act

Rule 1000(a). No pilot or pilots, or persons, or persons acting on the direction or suggestion or supervision of the pilot or pilots may try, or make attempt to try, to comprehend or understand any or all, in whole or in part, of the herein mentioned Civil Aviation Regulations, except as authorised by the Director or an agent appointed by the Director.

Rule 1000(b). If the pilot or group of associated pilots become 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 Regulations, they must immediately within three (3) days notify in writing the Director.

Rule 1000(c). Upon receipt of the abovementioned notice of impending comprehension, the Director will immediately re-write the Civil Aviation Regulations in such a manner as to eliminate any further comprehension hazards.

Rule 1000(d). The Director may, at his or her option, require the offending pilot, or pilots, to attend remedial instruction in the Civil Aviation Regulations until such time that the pilot, or pilots, are too confused to be capable of understanding anything.

Last edited by DancingDog; 17th Jul 2012 at 10:56.
DancingDog is offline  
Old 17th Jul 2012, 07:21
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: on the edge
Posts: 823
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Get a grip Blackie.
Old mate, who purports to be a pilot; implicit in this is that he understands English, has sat and passed numerous exams, comes on here and pretends he can't decipher the regulations. Plus He YELLS because that makes his argument more correct.
Or perhaps he is on a certain ferry on the river Styx using transcendental medication

Last edited by blackhand; 17th Jul 2012 at 07:22.
blackhand is offline  
Old 17th Jul 2012, 07:49
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 1,686
Received 47 Likes on 31 Posts
legal word games...

Lawyers love a time consuming sh*te-fight over the meaning of a word.
se Fice re Caper and "usually"..or was it "generally".

"terrain".... a tract of country/land. No mention of the liquid stuff there.
"water"..... a liquid compound of oxygen and hydrogen. No mention of any hard stuff there.
How a word, and/ or the use of, is interpreted can decide whether someone gets hung...or not.

If it does not specify both then the regulation is poorly thought out and badly written...whose fault is that.? And we suffer with more enough of that convoluted gobbldegook as it is.
The psuedo-legals that cobble up these crap regs are failing the requirement that the regs must be written for the layman/user/us...and not just legal vomitus for lawyers to play with.
The bureaucrapic way is "complexitization"...creates more work, takes more time, costs more money..and the KISS principle is given the kiss-off. And GA suffers accordingly.
aroa is offline  
Old 17th Jul 2012, 07:59
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: on the edge
Posts: 823
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The bureaucrapic way is "complexitization"...creates more work, takes more time, costs more money..and the KISS principle is given the kiss-off. And GA suffers accordingly.
Agree completely on this. In my work I have found that it is a struggle for smaller orgs in the regional/remote areas to move to the new paradigm. Brisbane office has been helpful, but still they can be pedants, although perhaps that is a requirement of the job.
blackhand is offline  
Old 17th Jul 2012, 08:22
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Salt Lake City Utah
Posts: 3,079
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The time’s still ticking on the question: What does ‘cross-country time’ mean for the purpose of meeting the aeronautical experience requirements for a sport pilot certificate with powered parachute privileges?

It couldn’t be that hard to interpret the oh-so-simple FAR definition I quoted.

By the way, your Australian regulations have really complicated one (2(10)) that says:
A reference in these regulations to height shall be read as a reference to:

(a) the vertical distance of a level or a point, or if an object is specified, that object considered as a point, measured from the datum specified in connection with the reference, or where no datum is specified, measured from the ground or water;
Creampuff is offline  
Old 17th Jul 2012, 08:36
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: on the edge
Posts: 823
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
.
(iv) For the purpose of meeting the aeronautical experience requirements for a sport pilot certificate with powered parachute privileges or a private pilot certificate with a powered parachute category rating, time acquired during a flight conducted in an appropriate aircraft that—
(A) Includes a point of landing at least a straight line distance of more than 15 nautical miles from the original point of departure; and
(B) Involves, as applicable, the use of dead reckoning; pilotage; electronic navigation aids; radio aids; or other navigation systems to navigate to the landing point.
Wild guess, atleast 15 NM from departure
blackhand is offline  
Old 17th Jul 2012, 08:41
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Salt Lake City Utah
Posts: 3,079
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Well done, BH! You must have been able to find the correct answer because the FARs are so ‘simple’.
Creampuff is offline  
Old 17th Jul 2012, 10:03
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Mydadsbag
Posts: 1,114
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Is that you Kevin Rudd?

Bbbzbzbzbzbzbzbzbzbzb
Mr.Buzzy is offline  
Old 17th Jul 2012, 21:25
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: moon
Posts: 3,564
Received 91 Likes on 34 Posts
The problem for simple private pilots like me is that I have not a snowballs chance in hell of understanding the finer points of the regulations, let alone the arcane circumlocutions and operating contortions necessary to comply, in fact I even doubt that compliance is possible in some circumstances.

By way of example, my understanding is that it is a criminal offence to start an engine without switching on a red anticollision beacon - if such beacon is fitted to the aircraft.

It is therefore a legitimate method of avoiding the possibility of committing this offence by not fitting a beacon (experimental or RAA), or causing the beacon to be removed if this option is legal for a certified aircraft.

What if such beacon is unserviceable? Is this a defence?


The net result is that as a private pilot I can only operate under the following assumptions.

1. Follow common sense.

2. Avoid possible interaction with CASA on the grounds that CASA will always find a "point of order" on which to prosecute you if it feels like it on the day.

By way of example - luggage restraints in a C172. Do tie down straps or cargo nets require certification? What is the lesser penalty here? Unrestrained baggage? The fitting and use of unapproved equipment? (eg a tiedown strap purchased from Bunnings)
Sunfish 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.