CAR 232...an Ausfly experience coming to you?
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: ChCh NZ
Posts: 402
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A keen motorbike owner is nearing the end of a 3 year restoration on his classic machine. He goes onto a forum discussion to ask about the costs involved in getting the compliance, inspection and tax done. VIN, WoF and rego.
Someone replies with..
'Put a false plate (from another bike) on it and just ride. The number of miles is negligible as it is only a hobby bike. The chances of an accident are slim as you will be riding carefully on the expensively restored bike.
As a bonus if you do get caught then the fine will probably be less than what all the other costs are going to come to over the years anyway. It saves a lot of drama and may be cheaper.'
I am sure there must be people about that feel the original question has been answered...
Fortunately for us, pilots have more sense.
Someone replies with..
'Put a false plate (from another bike) on it and just ride. The number of miles is negligible as it is only a hobby bike. The chances of an accident are slim as you will be riding carefully on the expensively restored bike.
As a bonus if you do get caught then the fine will probably be less than what all the other costs are going to come to over the years anyway. It saves a lot of drama and may be cheaper.'
I am sure there must be people about that feel the original question has been answered...
Fortunately for us, pilots have more sense.
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
Linseed oil is for cricket bat's. What else do you want to know?
Last edited by Frank Arouet; 6th Sep 2015 at 01:30. Reason: I'm off to check my Koala Bear traps now.
So is a medical DR a trade because its not a true Doctorate
You really have a problem, don't you.
A medical practitioner is a professional by qualification, usually starting of with an MB/BS or equivalent degree, which is not obtained by a combination of trade school and apprenticeship, by whatever name. The title Dr. for a physician( or dentist) is really a title justified by common usage, but many (particularly English) surgeons just go by the title Mr.
For your information, the mandate for competency based training and standards is not limited to aviation, it applies to all fields of education in Australia.
The present shambolic situation with AME licensing in Australia is not as a result of competency based standards, but is entirely CASA self generated.
The Australian LAME license was never the hardest to get ( although Australia was and is always pretty good at singing its own xenophobic praises), one of the overseas objections to recognising Australian licenses in recent years has been because of the limited training required (in teaching time and scope) in Australia, compared to most of Europe, SE Asia or the US, and the resultant limited knowledge and experience.
As for the rest, I have already answered, but obviously not to your satisfaction, I am afraid you will have to settle for my answers, once your prejudices are settled, mere facts will not disturb them. Some of your rather crude scatological phraseology does you no credit.
You really should get out more, it might puncture some of your self delusion.
Tootle pip!!
Children, children; the adults on this site won't show you 'respect' while you keep waving your willies at each other. Your short attention span pisses some of us off too. Sadly, beatings are no longer allowed - apparently kids go on medication these days.
Back to the OP's concerns about CAR 232 etc. Yes, we should be concerned about all the penalty points and the whole punitive approach to something relatively unimportant in the grand scheme. Whatever happened to consultation, counselling and education, with enforcement only as a last resort? There are only a few pilots who would not respond to a firm but reasoned bollocking if a ramp check showed that they lacked required documentation.
However, despite the Draconian wording of CAR 232, it has been my experience with checklists in G.A. that CASA would not know what they have or have not approved. Even at airline level, while there will be a record of it somewhere, if it is more than a few years old it is most likely on the operator's books, not CASA's.
I have seen plenty of checklists - both home-made and official manufacturers' - but I have never, ever, seen one with "CASA CAR 232 approval ...dated......" stamped on it. The more official-looking ones usually have the operator's amendment date. Maybe put a date on your home made one then. Old enough to have been lost in the CASA archives, but not so old that it pre-dates the POH or AFM checklist. And all the better if the content is the same as the POH or AFM because then YOU have a reference that CASA won't have on the spot, and would be unlikely to challenge. Whether you really use it or not is another thing, but in a single pilot operation how would the FOI conducting the ramp check actually know?
There is a long list of 'stuff' they can ping you on during a ramp check, but as far as I can see, any checklist - whether it be a whole book, a laminated card or OEM placards on the panel (way to go!) - is likely to satisfy the inspector on the day. In an RPT operation a diligent FOI could conceivably reference the operator's manual suite, but in GA? Which office is the inspector from? Which office does the oversight on your aircraft? If they are doing dozens of ramp checks, bothering about such trivia would be too time consuming. If they are in prosecute-mode, there will be easier findings to bring in the revenue.
So............ woe betide you if your charts are not up to date, and/or you are overloaded, because they CAN check those against their references or bathroom scales.
Back to the OP's concerns about CAR 232 etc. Yes, we should be concerned about all the penalty points and the whole punitive approach to something relatively unimportant in the grand scheme. Whatever happened to consultation, counselling and education, with enforcement only as a last resort? There are only a few pilots who would not respond to a firm but reasoned bollocking if a ramp check showed that they lacked required documentation.
However, despite the Draconian wording of CAR 232, it has been my experience with checklists in G.A. that CASA would not know what they have or have not approved. Even at airline level, while there will be a record of it somewhere, if it is more than a few years old it is most likely on the operator's books, not CASA's.
I have seen plenty of checklists - both home-made and official manufacturers' - but I have never, ever, seen one with "CASA CAR 232 approval ...dated......" stamped on it. The more official-looking ones usually have the operator's amendment date. Maybe put a date on your home made one then. Old enough to have been lost in the CASA archives, but not so old that it pre-dates the POH or AFM checklist. And all the better if the content is the same as the POH or AFM because then YOU have a reference that CASA won't have on the spot, and would be unlikely to challenge. Whether you really use it or not is another thing, but in a single pilot operation how would the FOI conducting the ramp check actually know?
There is a long list of 'stuff' they can ping you on during a ramp check, but as far as I can see, any checklist - whether it be a whole book, a laminated card or OEM placards on the panel (way to go!) - is likely to satisfy the inspector on the day. In an RPT operation a diligent FOI could conceivably reference the operator's manual suite, but in GA? Which office is the inspector from? Which office does the oversight on your aircraft? If they are doing dozens of ramp checks, bothering about such trivia would be too time consuming. If they are in prosecute-mode, there will be easier findings to bring in the revenue.
So............ woe betide you if your charts are not up to date, and/or you are overloaded, because they CAN check those against their references or bathroom scales.
Mach: This thread is not about whether there should be a return to some mythical good ol' days of "firm but reasoned bollocking" rather than a "punitive approach".
It's primarily about a very simple question: Can the operator of an aircraft and its pilot engaged in PVT operations satisfy the requirements of CAR 232, as 'modified' by the exemption, by establishing and implementing a system of rote-learned emergency and normal checklists?
There can only be one answer out of two mutually exclusive alternatives. The answer is either 'yes' or 'no'.
If the answer is yes, there is no ground on which an FOI can deliver a "firm but reasoned bollicking", or anything else, to a PVT pilot who does not produce paper or electronic copies of checklists, in accordance with the CASA guidance on ramp checks for GA pilots. If the answer is yes and the pilot says s/he's rote-learned the checklists for the aircraft, presumably the FOI can ask: "What are your actions if you suffer an engine failure after take off?", and the pilot can choose whether to answer or not.
If the answer is no, CASA should make a clear statement that it requires copies of paper or electronic checklists to be produced by GA pilots during ramp checks, irrespective of the classification of the operation.
Then there's the overarching issue of complexity ...
"Beyond a point, complexity is fraud."
It's primarily about a very simple question: Can the operator of an aircraft and its pilot engaged in PVT operations satisfy the requirements of CAR 232, as 'modified' by the exemption, by establishing and implementing a system of rote-learned emergency and normal checklists?
There can only be one answer out of two mutually exclusive alternatives. The answer is either 'yes' or 'no'.
If the answer is yes, there is no ground on which an FOI can deliver a "firm but reasoned bollicking", or anything else, to a PVT pilot who does not produce paper or electronic copies of checklists, in accordance with the CASA guidance on ramp checks for GA pilots. If the answer is yes and the pilot says s/he's rote-learned the checklists for the aircraft, presumably the FOI can ask: "What are your actions if you suffer an engine failure after take off?", and the pilot can choose whether to answer or not.
If the answer is no, CASA should make a clear statement that it requires copies of paper or electronic checklists to be produced by GA pilots during ramp checks, irrespective of the classification of the operation.
Then there's the overarching issue of complexity ...
"Beyond a point, complexity is fraud."
If only we could return to the days when we rote learned basic checklists!
My take on CAR 232 is that any pilot unable to produce a checklist in some physical form would bring down the wrath of CASA, I think CAR 232 is fairly explicit on that, so to keep the peace I always have a checklist accessible. Can't be bothered with the cost of challenging it by not having at least something to show the person from government who is here to help.....
In my little Sonex I made a checklist that simply says Fuel, Flap, Trim, Controls & Canopy and stuck it to the panel. Do I really need such a complex checklist? Probably not, but it is there just in case the workload gets to be too much for my senile brain.
Did CASA 'approve' it? No, and unless they offer a free service to do same, will not be invited to. Are they required to approve checklists for private operations? Dunno, but seeing as the aircraft is RA AUS registered, it's an interesting grey area. Like much of the legislation, CAR 232 seems to be applicable to all aircraft, regardless of rego. It is ridiculous and fraudulent complexity indeed.
Who was it said " rules are for the guidance of wise men and the blind obedience of fools " ?
My take on CAR 232 is that any pilot unable to produce a checklist in some physical form would bring down the wrath of CASA, I think CAR 232 is fairly explicit on that, so to keep the peace I always have a checklist accessible. Can't be bothered with the cost of challenging it by not having at least something to show the person from government who is here to help.....
In my little Sonex I made a checklist that simply says Fuel, Flap, Trim, Controls & Canopy and stuck it to the panel. Do I really need such a complex checklist? Probably not, but it is there just in case the workload gets to be too much for my senile brain.
Did CASA 'approve' it? No, and unless they offer a free service to do same, will not be invited to. Are they required to approve checklists for private operations? Dunno, but seeing as the aircraft is RA AUS registered, it's an interesting grey area. Like much of the legislation, CAR 232 seems to be applicable to all aircraft, regardless of rego. It is ridiculous and fraudulent complexity indeed.
Who was it said " rules are for the guidance of wise men and the blind obedience of fools " ?
Mach E and friends,
At least by the chosen interpretations of at least two CASA offices, a "flight check system" is NOT, I repeat, NOT a checklist, it is a document far more extensive, which lays down the what, when and how of just about everything you do from getting up in the morning with the intention of committing aviation.
It is almost a complete Operations Manual.
Something else it is, is an out of control monster that is a threat to safe operation of an aircraft, and generally ignores CAR 138 as a manufacture's statement of how the aircraft should be operated.
For one common small jet, the normal operating checklists are six or so pages of a QRH, with not much on each page. From memory the CASA imposed and approved "flight check system" runs to some 50 or so A4 pages.
For a PA-31, likewise, and about as long.
Well, tell us what the alternative is to competency, incompetency based training??
Tootle pip!!
At least by the chosen interpretations of at least two CASA offices, a "flight check system" is NOT, I repeat, NOT a checklist, it is a document far more extensive, which lays down the what, when and how of just about everything you do from getting up in the morning with the intention of committing aviation.
It is almost a complete Operations Manual.
Something else it is, is an out of control monster that is a threat to safe operation of an aircraft, and generally ignores CAR 138 as a manufacture's statement of how the aircraft should be operated.
For one common small jet, the normal operating checklists are six or so pages of a QRH, with not much on each page. From memory the CASA imposed and approved "flight check system" runs to some 50 or so A4 pages.
For a PA-31, likewise, and about as long.
Dose that make it right for aviation here in Australia
Tootle pip!!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Victoria
Posts: 750
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I still have not got a PM on any surgeons that use Mr and not Dr.
This guy might be able to help you with your blood pressure problems
http://www.victorianvascular.com.au/
Kaz
If only blood pressure were yr right's only or biggest problem! 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Close
Posts: 231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"....and be called an expert whiteness on aircraft maintenance. No you cant."
So,
You are an expert witness then. I just knew it. Which court case was it you appeared in? Sounds like one that your evidence made a big difference in and so out of fairness to you why not share it? I'm sure that would only help in this debate....
Stiky
So,
You are an expert witness then. I just knew it. Which court case was it you appeared in? Sounds like one that your evidence made a big difference in and so out of fairness to you why not share it? I'm sure that would only help in this debate....
Stiky
So what do you think a SOE is.
I know: Special Operations Executive, good WWII era spy stuff -- don't tell me you are really an ASIO spy in disguise.
That would explain how you know all about everybody??
Tootle pip!!
