Part 61 Letter from McCormick
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Writing Part 141 and 142 manuals these days
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Part 61 Letter from McCormick
I received the informative proverbial part 61 propaganda letter in today's mail...... after reading it, I was quite excited to think that the CASA budget would stretch another bit and there would be MORE education session.... 
Disheartened to see second last paragraph - "To give pilots a further opportunity to understand the new rules, CASA is holding additional information sessions on 21 October 2013 in six capitol cities......."
Is it just my postman (I only live 1 hour drive from a major city, not in a back yard place like Boulia where the mail only arrives once a week), or is this a case of another mistake due to the rushed roll out of Part 61? Did anyone else get their letter today only?
Keep Smilin' Sunshiners!
Disheartened to see second last paragraph - "To give pilots a further opportunity to understand the new rules, CASA is holding additional information sessions on 21 October 2013 in six capitol cities......."
Is it just my postman (I only live 1 hour drive from a major city, not in a back yard place like Boulia where the mail only arrives once a week), or is this a case of another mistake due to the rushed roll out of Part 61? Did anyone else get their letter today only?
Keep Smilin' Sunshiners!
Last edited by Ace on Base; 21st Oct 2013 at 10:38.
Folks,
The problem with the letter is that it reflects what was, perhaps, supposed to be in Part 61, but not what has actually appeared as a regulations package.
Even before Part 61 becomes operative, there is a substantial package of amendments which may of may not (depending on what the legal drafters of the Office of Parliamentary Counsel actually produce) address some of the issues that I believe Mr. McCormick does not believe exist.
His example of the commercial multi pilot may of may not be correct, depending on what else he may be flying, few GA pilots on fly one type, year in, year out.
As to not commenting during consultation, certainly the points I raised have not been addressed. Whether it is correct or not, I do not know, but a usually reliable mate says that, compared with the current rules, and comparing apples and apples, this package introduces 159 new criminal offenses, most strict liability.
Tootle pip!!
The problem with the letter is that it reflects what was, perhaps, supposed to be in Part 61, but not what has actually appeared as a regulations package.
Even before Part 61 becomes operative, there is a substantial package of amendments which may of may not (depending on what the legal drafters of the Office of Parliamentary Counsel actually produce) address some of the issues that I believe Mr. McCormick does not believe exist.
His example of the commercial multi pilot may of may not be correct, depending on what else he may be flying, few GA pilots on fly one type, year in, year out.
As to not commenting during consultation, certainly the points I raised have not been addressed. Whether it is correct or not, I do not know, but a usually reliable mate says that, compared with the current rules, and comparing apples and apples, this package introduces 159 new criminal offenses, most strict liability.
Tootle pip!!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Writing Part 141 and 142 manuals these days
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
fpvdude, too late for the meeting / training, it was yesterday (when I got my letter)....
Thats my point!
Keep Smilin' Sunshiners
Thats my point!
Keep Smilin' Sunshiners
LeadSled
It would be helpful if you would identify, with precision by reference to the specific regulations, one or two of the “issues” intended to be addressed by the “substantial package of amendments”.
To assist, I will give you the sentences to fill out:
If you can’t or won't do that, the content of your post has no credibility.
It would be helpful if you would identify, with precision by reference to the specific regulations, one or two of the “issues” intended to be addressed by the “substantial package of amendments”.
To assist, I will give you the sentences to fill out:
For example, the definition of […LEADSLED TO INSERT…] in Part 61 says […LEADSLED TO INSERT…], and provision […LEADSLED TO INSERT…] says […LEADSLED TO INSERT…]. The unintended outcomes of that include […LEADSLED TO INSERT…].
Consequently, the package of amendments changes provision […LEADSLED TO INSERT…] so that it will in future say […LEADSLED TO INSERT…].
Consequently, the package of amendments changes provision […LEADSLED TO INSERT…] so that it will in future say […LEADSLED TO INSERT…].
Join Date: May 2010
Location: More than 300km from SY, Australia
Posts: 817
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
casa is out of touch with the Aviation Industry
Still waiting for the letter and by the way Creaamer, FF just don't answer questions on Part 61 or say "..we will fix that later..."
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: New Zealand
Age: 71
Posts: 1,475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ding Ding - Battle Royale Creampuff vs Leadsled
LETS GET READY TO RUMBLE.....
And so the battle continues.
This match is scheduled for one fall only. In both corners we have regulatory goliaths! One, content with providing solutions interspersed with the occasional 'tootles' and robust discussion, the other calling for defamation suits and removal of posts that may offend. Just like regulatory reform this game could be played out for years with neither party yielding to the other (a bit like the power struggle between 2 field office managers). Great entertainment for the masses. Will Creamy pledge allegiance to the CASA flag? Will Leadie confess to being an active member of the underground Ill Of Society sect like many other players on this website?
Will the two robust bloggers be forced to take their issue 'off line' and compete in a 'regulatory legal definition cage match', in which winner takes all (actually the prize is a copy of the very rare print version SPM), highly collectable due to its age and rarity, truly a seldom used item.
Will Leadie maintain a poker face while hitting Creamy with references to the 'Act', while Creamy retorts by demanding all correspondence from Leadie be put in a minute, Aleck style? Guest referees JMac, Truss and Xenophon will have their work cut out for them that's for certain.
Will the match be interrupted again by Casaweary in an attempt to gain referee Xenophons attention? The excitement is too much to bare my friends.
I'm putting a $50 on Leadie (3/1 odds) maintaining his current composure and winning the dual to the death. Creamy has already shown cracks in his composure and is currently ranked a not so robust 11/1 at this stage.
Continue gentleman, and no hitting below the robust belt...
And so the battle continues.
This match is scheduled for one fall only. In both corners we have regulatory goliaths! One, content with providing solutions interspersed with the occasional 'tootles' and robust discussion, the other calling for defamation suits and removal of posts that may offend. Just like regulatory reform this game could be played out for years with neither party yielding to the other (a bit like the power struggle between 2 field office managers). Great entertainment for the masses. Will Creamy pledge allegiance to the CASA flag? Will Leadie confess to being an active member of the underground Ill Of Society sect like many other players on this website?
Will the two robust bloggers be forced to take their issue 'off line' and compete in a 'regulatory legal definition cage match', in which winner takes all (actually the prize is a copy of the very rare print version SPM), highly collectable due to its age and rarity, truly a seldom used item.
Will Leadie maintain a poker face while hitting Creamy with references to the 'Act', while Creamy retorts by demanding all correspondence from Leadie be put in a minute, Aleck style? Guest referees JMac, Truss and Xenophon will have their work cut out for them that's for certain.
Will the match be interrupted again by Casaweary in an attempt to gain referee Xenophons attention? The excitement is too much to bare my friends.
I'm putting a $50 on Leadie (3/1 odds) maintaining his current composure and winning the dual to the death. Creamy has already shown cracks in his composure and is currently ranked a not so robust 11/1 at this stage.
Continue gentleman, and no hitting below the robust belt...
5 marks for creativity, Para, but you have been marked down heavily for poor spelling (or rather, blind use of a spell checker).
Could do better if he tried harder.
Could do better if he tried harder.
Actually P337, I’m on Leaddie’s side, conceptually. But I know his fundamental weakness, as does CASA.
It’s his complete inability to cite particulars of specific issues.
It’s why he gets laughed off and dismissed by the regulator. I’d prefer that he didn’t. The lot of GA in Australia might have benefited more from his experience and unstinting efforts if he didn’t.
GA representatives speaking in scary generalities about aviation regulation has never resulted in any substantial change. Never.
It’s his complete inability to cite particulars of specific issues.
It’s why he gets laughed off and dismissed by the regulator. I’d prefer that he didn’t. The lot of GA in Australia might have benefited more from his experience and unstinting efforts if he didn’t.
GA representatives speaking in scary generalities about aviation regulation has never resulted in any substantial change. Never.
Join Date: May 2013
Location: have I forgotten or am I lost?
Age: 71
Posts: 1,126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm afraid Mr McCormic's letter read well but will be ignored.
I stopped listening to anything put out by CASA about $180,000,000 ago.
I dont care how competent some of the individual officers are, casa really are the clueless arseholes stopping aviation.
I stopped listening to anything put out by CASA about $180,000,000 ago.
I dont care how competent some of the individual officers are, casa really are the clueless arseholes stopping aviation.
An extract from CASA's regulation impact statement pertaining to the implementation of part 61
"The implementation/transition phase will provide for Australia-wide education and training programmes to assist industry and CASA staff in the application of the new rules"
There was no "definitions" section in this document so "Australia wide" is ambiguous. I would suggest given the amount of confusion here it has been unsuccessful so far.
"The implementation/transition phase will provide for Australia-wide education and training programmes to assist industry and CASA staff in the application of the new rules"
There was no "definitions" section in this document so "Australia wide" is ambiguous. I would suggest given the amount of confusion here it has been unsuccessful so far.
Fpv dude,
I would think to hire a twin (single pilot) and operate IFR the "cyclic" would have to have been single pilot op.
My question is, If they group ME <5700kg "class" aeroplanes together (i.e. no specific type ratings) would a renewal conducted in a single pilot "MEA" >5700 kg's (BE350/Metro) allow that pilot to act as PIC IFR on the aforementioned?
I would think to hire a twin (single pilot) and operate IFR the "cyclic" would have to have been single pilot op.
My question is, If they group ME <5700kg "class" aeroplanes together (i.e. no specific type ratings) would a renewal conducted in a single pilot "MEA" >5700 kg's (BE350/Metro) allow that pilot to act as PIC IFR on the aforementioned?