CASA New Part 91

[Sunfish]

On another note, I have yet to find a C172 for hire that has an "approved" Cessna cargo net.

My response is to apply lashings of Spectra (stronger than steel) yachting line to make sure our bags are restrained - which has the added effect of ensuring that I get charged with Two offences - unrestrained bags and unapproved equipment. I assume others do the same. Good one CASA! Should I have merely left the bags unrestrained it would only be one offence!

[djpil]

Its OK Sunfish - read the reg for carry-on baggage.

[Horatio Leafblower]

Jaba,
The whole point of differentiating between commercial pilots and private pilots is to ensure CPLs have the training and support and integrity to deal with "commercial pressure and ambiguity".
The rules regarding fuel reserves that seem so draconian to a PPL strike me as describing a fundamental duty of a CPL's (let alone ATPL's) employment.
The reserves stipulated in the new 91 are substantially less than the normal fixed reserve hitherto applied in any commercial op I have ever seen.
If you breach those fuel levels you are fkn insane and if I employed you we would be having a short chat (no need for a long one).
Notwithstanding I have not done more than flick through the Part quickly, and the whole "strict liability" thing aside, I don't see the problems here.

[dubbleyew eight]

for djpil

91.545 carriage of cargo on unoccupied seats
section (3) was a cut and paste from the pdf.

50 penalty units.

I think I'd love to get into parliament. my private members bill would set the value of a penalty unit at 1 zimbabwian cent.

[Lead Balloon]

I don't see the problems here.

It seems to me that you're assuming that people are complaining about what I'll call the 'operational intent' of the proposed rules about fuel.

That's not what we (or at least me) are complaining about.

The proposed rules aren't "draconian".

Here's the problem: The change to the rules is unnecessary and will inevitably have unintended consequences.

The operational intent is already achievable, and is being achieved within the framework of the current rules. And the people who, through incompetence or commercial pressure, run out of fuel under the current rules will run out of fuel under the proposed rules. There are already more than enough mechanisms under the current legal framework to take the pilot's licence away, prosecute the pilot, sue the pilot for damages and produce an ATSB report that attributes the cause entirely to the pilot. So we can already scapegoat the pilot, in accordance with contemporary safety management system and just culture principles.

There is, therefore, no safety problem to which the proposed new fuel rules is a solution.

There is a bunch of people, paid six figure salaries year after year and decade after decade, producing all of this stuff. It wouldn't be so bad if all they did was produce unnecessary stuff that had no consequences in reality. But sooner or later, industry will start finding real and unintended operational consequences in the proposed Part 91. Decades and tens of millions of dollars, and it will create unintended operational consequences - I will guarantee it.

The self-licking ice cream has the solution: Exemptions. Then start a project to do a post-implementation review. "It is expected that the post-implementation review will ....".

Just imagine how much work this creates for the bunch of people on six figure salaries producing all of this stuff, decade after decade. And their colleagues, who draft exemptions and arrange for tabling and all of the other governance around disallowable instruments are eternally grateful too.

And all this has to be paid for in fees by the industry or appropriations from the taxpayers' coffers.

All in the name of 'safety', of course.

"Beyond a certain point, complexity is fraud."

[LeadSled]

Folks,
As many of you will know (it has all been on pprune) the latest EASA innovation is the new boss fired the whole EASA rule making bureau, for pretty much the reasons Lead Balloon mentioned --- although the EASA press releases were a tad more diplomatic.

That was a real "new broom", swept the whole kit and caboodle right out the DCM door.

Tootle pip!!

[zanthrus]

Originally Posted by Sunfish

I especially like the self incrimination regulation. If you think you are about to use part of your reserve, you must declare an emergency.

Get ****ed CASA.*

All your new regulations will do is entirely alienate the aviation community and ensure that no one EVER declares a fuel related emergency.

* And I mean get ****ed. The mark of a Gentleman is that he does not give offence unintentionally. In the case of part 91, when you wish to label me a felon If I transgress your draconian regulations, I say get ****ed - and I say that because I know a few judges, and that is what they say about the law and those in front of them, and each other in private.

There is no point arguing with CASA. This whole part needs withdrawal and redrafting - starting with removal of strict liability.

To put it another way; the draft regulation is designed to stitch up people like Dominic James - who are faced with ambiguous situations and commercial pressures - and ensure without any doubt that the regulator and Airservices will never be blamed for the consequences of their stupidity and corruption.

Get ****ed CASA!

To put it yet another way, in the words of an eminent jurist who is an acquaintance: " If you want to strengthen this regulation, water it down" - meaning that courts don't like to enforce draconian bull****. CASAS proposed regulations actually decrease safety and should be opposed because of it.

There is no way to enforce this anyway. If you crash because you run out of fuel you have bigger problems than CASA.

Otherwise CASA has no manpower to run around checking fuel tanks everywhere.
I will refuse to let them near my aircraft and they can get stuffed!

[dubbleyew eight]

the whole purpose of the mandatory fixed reserve is so that you had some reserve amount of fuel that could be used if all else failed.

the original intent of the rules wasn't to tanker around a blast load of fuel it was so that that fuel could be used.
I would wager that it was based on some experience at needing it.

to make it illegal to actually use the fixed reserve when needed is patently bloody absurd.
....but that is the fcukwitted world we get when clueless lawyers get involved in an engineering environment.

[djpil]

dubbleyew eight, we are not looking at the same version. I downloaded the latest exposure draft. 91.545 is Safety when aeroplane operating on the ground.

[dubbleyew eight]

there was something in I think part 91 that stunned me.

consider that you were a pilot yourself and you were in MH370 and you became aware that not everything was going to plan.
you were off course, the aircraft had changed altitude, and the emergency oxygen masks had dropped.
things were decidedly weird.
the cabin crew were as utterly perplexed as you.

you had in your top pocket your personal locator beacon as a result of the previous MH370 ongoing mystery.

CAsA have made it illegal for you to pop your locater beacon in the window and activate it.
now I don't mind untrained passengers being told that they couldn't set of emergency beacons but me as a pilot, and a seasoned airline traveller, with the hairs on the back of my neck standing on end.

get fckued CAsA I'll be popping my PLB to give someone a hope of finding us.

[dubbleyew eight]

djpil I simply followed the link that one of the posters had put in his post in this thread.

a late edit.
I downloaded the pdf from the casa website.
are you telling me that these people are so clueless that they have the wrong version posted on their website.
or multiple wrong versions.

are you starting to believe that they really are incompetent, yet???

ps even the pprune spellchecker thinks that case is an error :-) :-) and keeps changing casa to case

[cessnapete]

I can't believe what I read here re CASA Rules for Oz pilots. I thought EASA here in Europe was bad enough. As for 'penalties' for getting it wrong, words fail me.
A pilot cannot possibly memorise all that paperwork.
What happened to good old airmanship learnt from good instruction, and gained from experience!

[Jabawocky]

Leafie

Jaba,
The whole point of differentiating between commercial pilots and private pilots is to ensure CPLs have the training and support and integrity to deal with "commercial pressure and ambiguity".
The rules regarding fuel reserves that seem so draconian to a PPL strike me as describing a fundamental duty of a CPL's (let alone ATPL's) employment.
The reserves stipulated in the new 91 are substantially less than the normal fixed reserve hitherto applied in any commercial op I have ever seen.
If you breach those fuel levels you are fkn insane and if I employed you we would be having a short chat (no need for a long one).
Notwithstanding I have not done more than flick through the Part quickly, and the whole "strict liability" thing aside, I don't see the problems here.

Yeah I agree with you, in fact, my whole flight planning for fuel is done at the typical commercial standards 15% etc. I am not likely to ever run out or short…..thats because I don't want stress. But IF the day comes where I need to dip 1 litre into my reserves because of a wx diversion and then a delay at the alternate like an a/c on the runway with a flat tyre, that took a while to remove, I would manage my fuel so it was all in the one place and not have to land on half a runway.

I don't care what the rules say…..safety is a state of mind. (and yes I know you get that too)

Problem is CASA are trying to write a rule for everything and often the baby goes out with the bath water.

[Capt Casper]

"91.120 Carriage of documents—certain flights
(1) This regulation applies in relation to a flight of an aircraft other than:
(a) a VFR flight conducted by day and within 50 nautical miles of the aircraft’s point of departure; or (b) a flight conducted: (i) within the flying training area for an aerodrome; and (ii) if the flying training area for the aerodrome is not adjacent to the aerodrome—along the flight path between the flying training area and the aerodrome.
(2) The pilot in command of an aircraft for a flight contravenes this subregulation if, when the flight begins, a document mentioned in subregulation (3) is not carried on the aircraft.
(3) The documents are as follows: (a) the authorised aeronautical information for the flight; (b) an authorised weather forecast applicable to the route of the flight and any probable diversionary route; (c) the flight technical log for the aircraft.
(4) Subregulation (2) does not apply in relation to the documents mentioned in paragraph (3)(b) if circumstances prescribed by the flight planning (weather assessments) requirements apply for the flight.
(5) A person commits an offence of strict liability if the person contravenes subregulation (2). Penalty: 50 penalty units. Note: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matters in subregulation (4): see subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code."

Can anyone put para 4 above in plain english for me???

[Jabawocky]

I would hope it means……I am going from Toowoomba to Caloundra and I can see the coast is visible because it is a gin clear day and weather is irrelevant.

I fear I would be wrong.

Who writes this rubbish

[no_one]

Casper, I think that it means that you have to have a weather forecast unless part 91.325 applies

91.325 Flight planning (weather assessments) requirements
(1) The Part 91 Manual of Standards may prescribe requirements relating to flight planning and weather assessments (the flight planning (weather assessments) requirements).
(2) The pilot in command of an aircraft for a flight contravenes this subregulation if a flight planning (weather assessments) requirement is not met for the flight.
(3) A person commits an offence of strict liability if the person contravenes subregulation (2).
Penalty: 50 penalty units.

[Lead Balloon]

Mr Jabbawocky

In order to understand this stuff, you have to adopt the mindset of someone who is a congenital complicator and micro-manager. Once you do that, it's easier to comprehend that "flight planning (weather assessments) requirements" is a new defined term that points to that paradise for complicators and micro-managers - a "Manual of Standards" - with their own penalty for non-compliance.

So instead of being able to know, from the face of the regulation alone, what you have to do to comply, you have to also know all of the "flight planning (weather assessment) requirements" in the MOS, because that is the only way to know which is the applicable requirement.

Watch out! There could be a flight planning (weather assessment) requirement for the route Toowoomba to Caloundra in the MOS - you won't know if you don't check. If there isn't, you're back to the requirement for an authorised weather forecast, even if you can see it's gin clear from Toowoomba to the coast and beyond.

But don't worry: you only need to have carried the documents when the flight began. Given the definition of "flight", you can therefore pass all the documents out of your aircraft's door or window as you taxi out, and continue the flight without them.

[LeadSled]

----- flight planning and weather assessments (the flight planning (weather assessments) requirements).

Folks,
Who would ever have imagined that "flight planning and weather assessments" included "the flight planning(weather assessments) requirements".
Tootle pip!!

[thorn bird]

Who assesses that the assessment by the assessor has been assessed in accordance with the assessment requirements of the assesse assessor?
What happens if the assesse assessor assesses that the assessment by the assessor is not in accordance with the assesse MOS, but the assessor disagrees with the assessment by the assesse and asks for an assessment of whether the assessors assessment was in accordance with the assessment manual? err got it!..I think?

Regarding a flight plan. A flight plan is THE plan on which one makes the changes. There are many types of Plans...who assesses when a plan is a plan....Good grief don't get me started on this assessment crap again... I'm so confused...now Who assesses when confusion is lack of assessment in the basic assessment of assessing a plan....OH buggrit...."BANG" ****!! missed!! now who assesses when an attempted suicide is assessed as a genuine attempt or...AGGH!

[LeadSled]

Thornbird,
Isn't the answer obvious:

Its the approved assessment by the approved assessor has been assessed for approval in accordance with the approved assessment requirements of the approved assessement by the approved assessor?

The approved assesse's approved assessor's approved assessment assesses that the approved assessment by the approved assessor is not in approved accordance with the approved assesse MOS, but the approved assessor disagrees with the approved assessment by the approved assesse and asks for an approved reassessment of the approved assessment of whether the approved assessors approved assessment was in approved accordance with the approved (or is that accepted) assessment manual?

More importantly, if you initial in error, and erase the initials, should you initial the erasure.

Tootle pip!!