CAR 232...an Ausfly experience coming to you?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Victoria
Posts: 750
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CAR 232...an Ausfly experience coming to you?
From Vocasupport:
Further damage to aviation accrues from CAR 232
A full 85 penalty points can accrue if an “operator” is ramp checked and has not:
(a) the flight check system has been approved by CASA;
(b) if CASA has required the system to be revised–the system has been revised in the manner specified by CASA.
85 penalty points at AUD$180 per point, so the maximum penalty is $15,300, making the administrative penalty $3060 – should improve the relationships with the aviation industry with #casa.
In the words of a long-time aviation member, there are serious issues here for all aviation participants:
“……By and large, what CASA micro-management will accept is a threat to air safety, the “approved systems” are so complex and extensive, and generally so contrary to manufacturer’s Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) recommended procedures, that they seriously impinge on the safe operation of the aircraft.
Note: That what is in the AFM, despite CAR 138, is not acceptable to at least two CASA regional offices.
Well, some bright spark in CASA has decided that, in the new Skidmore spirit of cooperation with industry, that CAR 232 should be rigorously enforced, after all it is “the law”, every aircraft has a “registered operator”, and CAR 232 rates a stand-alone mention in the CASA Ramp Check checklist, so it must be really, really important…..”
CIVIL AVIATION REGULATIONS 1988 – REG 232
Flight check system
(1) The operator of an aircraft shall establish a flight check system for each type of aircraft, setting out the procedure to be followed by the pilot in command and other flight crew members prior to and on take-off, in flight, on landing and in emergency situations.
Penalty: 25 penalty units.
(2) A flight check system shall be subject to the prior approval of CASA, and CASA may at any time require the system to be revised in such manner as CASA specifies.
(3) The pilot in command must ensure that the check lists of the procedures are carried in the aircraft and are located where they will be available instantly to the crew member concerned.
Penalty: 10 penalty units.
(4) The pilot in command shall ensure that the flight check system is carried out in detail.
Penalty: 25 penalty units.
(5) The operator of an aircraft must not allow the aircraft to be flown if the following requirements have not been satisfied:
(a) the flight check system has been approved by CASA;
(b) if CASA has required the system to be revised–the system has been revised in the manner specified by CASA.
Penalty: 25 penalty units.
(6) An offence against subregulation (1), (3), (4) or (5) is an offence of strict liability.
Note: For strict liability , see section 6.1 of the Criminal Code
Further damage to aviation accrues from CAR 232
A full 85 penalty points can accrue if an “operator” is ramp checked and has not:
(a) the flight check system has been approved by CASA;
(b) if CASA has required the system to be revised–the system has been revised in the manner specified by CASA.
85 penalty points at AUD$180 per point, so the maximum penalty is $15,300, making the administrative penalty $3060 – should improve the relationships with the aviation industry with #casa.
In the words of a long-time aviation member, there are serious issues here for all aviation participants:
“……By and large, what CASA micro-management will accept is a threat to air safety, the “approved systems” are so complex and extensive, and generally so contrary to manufacturer’s Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) recommended procedures, that they seriously impinge on the safe operation of the aircraft.
Note: That what is in the AFM, despite CAR 138, is not acceptable to at least two CASA regional offices.
Well, some bright spark in CASA has decided that, in the new Skidmore spirit of cooperation with industry, that CAR 232 should be rigorously enforced, after all it is “the law”, every aircraft has a “registered operator”, and CAR 232 rates a stand-alone mention in the CASA Ramp Check checklist, so it must be really, really important…..”
CIVIL AVIATION REGULATIONS 1988 – REG 232
Flight check system
(1) The operator of an aircraft shall establish a flight check system for each type of aircraft, setting out the procedure to be followed by the pilot in command and other flight crew members prior to and on take-off, in flight, on landing and in emergency situations.
Penalty: 25 penalty units.
(2) A flight check system shall be subject to the prior approval of CASA, and CASA may at any time require the system to be revised in such manner as CASA specifies.
(3) The pilot in command must ensure that the check lists of the procedures are carried in the aircraft and are located where they will be available instantly to the crew member concerned.
Penalty: 10 penalty units.
(4) The pilot in command shall ensure that the flight check system is carried out in detail.
Penalty: 25 penalty units.
(5) The operator of an aircraft must not allow the aircraft to be flown if the following requirements have not been satisfied:
(a) the flight check system has been approved by CASA;
(b) if CASA has required the system to be revised–the system has been revised in the manner specified by CASA.
Penalty: 25 penalty units.
(6) An offence against subregulation (1), (3), (4) or (5) is an offence of strict liability.
Note: For strict liability , see section 6.1 of the Criminal Code
I'm building experimental and there is NO AFM! I have a draft AFM provided by the manufacturer of the airframe with no responsibility "as is", no hard performance numbers besides VNE, VMO and an AUW and CG range. To that must be added the engine and propeller operators manuals and a Skyview manual.
Emergency procedures are generic for a single engined aircraft and specific for the engine and propeller. There are Two or three wrinkles to be added though. Even Rotax procedures depend to some extent on the configuration of the airframe.
If any of this has to be submitted to CASA for their perusal and analysis at my expense I'll quit building right now.
Emergency procedures are generic for a single engined aircraft and specific for the engine and propeller. There are Two or three wrinkles to be added though. Even Rotax procedures depend to some extent on the configuration of the airframe.
If any of this has to be submitted to CASA for their perusal and analysis at my expense I'll quit building right now.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Victoria
Posts: 750
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have written to my federal Member, Sharman Stone about this and other regulatory disasters.
I also sent a copy to Sussan Ley, Health Minister, who flies her own C182 RG around her very large electorate and asked her if she would cop the fines.
My Auster has never had an AFM and operates on an exemption. I have a check list with my MR but it has never been authorised under 232 to my knowledge.
I wonder what the cost-recovery fee to approve will be. And I wonder how much it will cost to have an authorised and approved checklist prepared by a competent aero engineer?
Yes it's BS and the people doing ramp checks will probably be reined in with another exemption but the point is that it shouldn't happen!
Kaz
I also sent a copy to Sussan Ley, Health Minister, who flies her own C182 RG around her very large electorate and asked her if she would cop the fines.
My Auster has never had an AFM and operates on an exemption. I have a check list with my MR but it has never been authorised under 232 to my knowledge.
I wonder what the cost-recovery fee to approve will be. And I wonder how much it will cost to have an authorised and approved checklist prepared by a competent aero engineer?
Yes it's BS and the people doing ramp checks will probably be reined in with another exemption but the point is that it shouldn't happen!
Kaz
Doesn't matter what the definition of "operator" is for the purposes of CAR 232. Whatever it happens to be, CAR 232 still imposes obligations on pilots.
And if CARs 233 and 234 apply to all pilots including private pilots, CAR 232 does too.
That, presumably, explains why CASA's guidance on ramp checks says what it says about checklists.
And if CARs 233 and 234 apply to all pilots including private pilots, CAR 232 does too.
That, presumably, explains why CASA's guidance on ramp checks says what it says about checklists.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Sunny,
Not sure if you are doing the Alphabet or telephone number rego option, but if its alphabet you will have a operation handbook or something like that put together, with check lists, the AP issues the CofA with that…. 
If any of this has to be submitted to CASA for their perusal and analysis at my expense I'll quit building right now.
Clue, find out what CASA's definition of an "operator" is and all this will go away.
That's an easy one (you could, of course, look it up) every Australian VH- aircraft has a registered operator, perhaps unsurprisingly it is part of the aircraft registration, and the registered operator is responsible for the operation of the aircraft.
Many moons ago there was Exemption EX38/2004 to CAR 232, but this can no longer be found on the CASA web site (by me, anyway) so it is a reasonable assumption that it has ceased to exist, and I can find no replacement.
If, in fact, this is the case, CAR 232 applies to all operations, and at least two CASA offices think this is the case.
Hence efforts to "nip in the bid" any attempts by CASA recalcitrant to spoil Ausfly, as they did Natfly for RAOz.
Tootle pip!!
There are numerous exemptions from 232 on the Federal Register of Legislative Instruments, but these all appear to be issued to individual operators.
There might be a 'general' one for private operations, but I couldn't find it.
But exemptions shouldn't be necessary or given, other than in extraordinarily unusual circumstances.
"Beyond a point, complexity is fraud."
There might be a 'general' one for private operations, but I couldn't find it.
But exemptions shouldn't be necessary or given, other than in extraordinarily unusual circumstances.
"Beyond a point, complexity is fraud."
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cost of getting CAsA approval for a "check" system???
So far around $2000 dollars for a completely unsafe concoction that the FOI imagines even comes close to operational reality.
So far around $2000 dollars for a completely unsafe concoction that the FOI imagines even comes close to operational reality.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Sydney NSW Australia
Posts: 3,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
so, what the regs are saying, is you need to carry, and use the aircraft checklists.. seams fair. shizer, even my cheap italian homebuilt has a decent checklist in the AFM. which i always carry on board, and use. cant be that hard. 
Engine failure after take off.
Let's see, page .... page ... it will be behind the Emergency Procedures tab somewhere ... page .... dead ultralight!
It's a very simple question: Is rote learning checklists a system that has been approved by CASA and obviates the requirement to carry paper/electronic checklists?
Let's see, page .... page ... it will be behind the Emergency Procedures tab somewhere ... page .... dead ultralight!
It's a very simple question: Is rote learning checklists a system that has been approved by CASA and obviates the requirement to carry paper/electronic checklists?
No, Ultralite, sadly that is NOT what it say, I suggest you read CAR 232 as it is written, not as you think it is written.
The problem lies in the fact that CASA requires far more than the AFM checklist (whether they should or not is another legal argument, despite CAR 138) as a "flight check system", of which such "checklists" as CASA dictates will be part, and flight check system has to be approved for each and every operator.
Thus, if for example, there of 10 owners of a C-172 on your airfield, and each is the registered operator of his/her C-172, that is 10 separate flight check system must be approved by CASA.
This is what CASA do to AOC operators all the time, and it is almost "standard" that, if there are, say, two Kingair 200, with two different registered operators, the two CASA approved "flight check systems" will be very different, depending on the FOI. About all you can guarantee is they will be quite different to the manufacturer's recommendations, ie: the AFM.
For some years there was an exemption ( great regulation, write a regulation, then exempt about 80% of Australian aircraft) for most single engine aircraft and some others, in private operation, but that seems to have lapsed, at least in the belief of two CASA regional offices.
It is lunacy.
Tootle pip!!
The problem lies in the fact that CASA requires far more than the AFM checklist (whether they should or not is another legal argument, despite CAR 138) as a "flight check system", of which such "checklists" as CASA dictates will be part, and flight check system has to be approved for each and every operator.
Thus, if for example, there of 10 owners of a C-172 on your airfield, and each is the registered operator of his/her C-172, that is 10 separate flight check system must be approved by CASA.
This is what CASA do to AOC operators all the time, and it is almost "standard" that, if there are, say, two Kingair 200, with two different registered operators, the two CASA approved "flight check systems" will be very different, depending on the FOI. About all you can guarantee is they will be quite different to the manufacturer's recommendations, ie: the AFM.
For some years there was an exemption ( great regulation, write a regulation, then exempt about 80% of Australian aircraft) for most single engine aircraft and some others, in private operation, but that seems to have lapsed, at least in the belief of two CASA regional offices.
It is lunacy.
Tootle pip!!
Last edited by LeadSled; 30th Aug 2015 at 09:07. Reason: typo
Ultralights:
No Ultralights, CAR232 says you need checklists approved by CASA no matter who the author is.
I think I'll work on the veggie garden, and not the aircraft, until this is cleared up because I'll be ^&%^ed if I am going to be toyed with like this! How can an issue like this surface as "new" after Twenty ******* years of regulation reform??????? What ******* planet is CASA on????
Seriously, CASA seems to be bent on destroying all forms of aviation other than airlines and the military.
so, what the regs are saying, is you need to carry, and use the aircraft checklists.. seams fair. shizer, even my cheap italian homebuilt has a decent checklist in the AFM. which i always carry on board, and use. cant be that hard.
I think I'll work on the veggie garden, and not the aircraft, until this is cleared up because I'll be ^&%^ed if I am going to be toyed with like this! How can an issue like this surface as "new" after Twenty ******* years of regulation reform??????? What ******* planet is CASA on????
Seriously, CASA seems to be bent on destroying all forms of aviation other than airlines and the military.
Last edited by Sunfish; 30th Aug 2015 at 09:05.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Sydney NSW Australia
Posts: 3,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seriously, CASA seems to be bent on destroying all forms of aviation other than airlines and the military
on a little side note, interesting to see in todays press that senator for the greens being questioned on her multi million dollar travel expenses claims, all spent on chartering aircraft to regional towns not serviced by airlines... funny that.
back to CAR232, i have not had the time to read them yet, but will soon, do these effect homebuilt, Ie, experimental aircraft?
chill man, buy a bottle of cucumber gin on your way through Dubbo and relax, enjoy the airshow.
Section 7 of the AOC handbook has the exemptions.
Section 7.2 to be specific.
CASA EX38/2004
Is this the specific exemption?
If it is, suggest copying and laminating and placing in front of AFM.
Further to this and from the explanation section-
Section 7.2 to be specific.
CASA EX38/2004
Is this the specific exemption?
If it is, suggest copying and laminating and placing in front of AFM.
Further to this and from the explanation section-
This exemption, therefore, exempts the operators of single and multi-engine piston engine aircraft not above 5700 kg maximum take-off weight and not involved in Regular Public Transport (RPT) operations, aircraft engaged in agricultural operations or private operations, single turbine engine helicopters certificated in the normal category and not involved in RPT operations or single turbine engine helicopters certificated in the restricted category not above 5700 kg maximum take-off weight or hot air balloons from the requirement to have the flight check system separately approved.
It also exempts all persons associated with the operation of the aircraft from the requirement, under subregulation 232 (5), not to fly the aircraft unless the flight check system has been approved.
As a condition on the exemption, an exempted operator will be required to describe the flight check system and publish it in the operator’s operations manual in accordance with regulation 215 or the aircraft’s flight manual.
It also exempts all persons associated with the operation of the aircraft from the requirement, under subregulation 232 (5), not to fly the aircraft unless the flight check system has been approved.
As a condition on the exemption, an exempted operator will be required to describe the flight check system and publish it in the operator’s operations manual in accordance with regulation 215 or the aircraft’s flight manual.
Last edited by OZBUSDRIVER; 30th Aug 2015 at 13:40.
Seriously, why complicate the requirements...if an FOI pulls you up, point out the placards or the AFM and a copy of this exemption to make sure he/she/it understands that you are NOT a commercial OPERATOR nor RPT.
Last edited by OZBUSDRIVER; 30th Aug 2015 at 14:04. Reason: syntax
Oz,
Problem is, as far as can be determined so far, EX 38/2004 has been extinguished, it is no longer published on the Commonwealth Register of LIs. Although 38/2004 was not published with an expiry date, it seems to no longer legally exist, and, of course, the AOCM is only an advisory document.
Maybe 38/2004 was not exempt from the automatic sunset clauses of the Legislative Instrument Act 2003, although I can't see immediately why that would be.
We think this is what at least two CASA regional offices have realized, hence their newfound interest in going after private owners (operators) for non-compliance with CAR 232, which regulation is specifically mentioned in the newest Ramp Check checklist.
Ain't aviation in Australia wonderful??? So simple and straightforward, we are inundated with new people wanting to commit fun filled and fascinating flying.
Tootle pip!!
Problem is, as far as can be determined so far, EX 38/2004 has been extinguished, it is no longer published on the Commonwealth Register of LIs. Although 38/2004 was not published with an expiry date, it seems to no longer legally exist, and, of course, the AOCM is only an advisory document.
Maybe 38/2004 was not exempt from the automatic sunset clauses of the Legislative Instrument Act 2003, although I can't see immediately why that would be.
We think this is what at least two CASA regional offices have realized, hence their newfound interest in going after private owners (operators) for non-compliance with CAR 232, which regulation is specifically mentioned in the newest Ramp Check checklist.
Ain't aviation in Australia wonderful??? So simple and straightforward, we are inundated with new people wanting to commit fun filled and fascinating flying.
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Dunnunda
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Problem is, as far as can be determined so far, EX 38/2004 has been extinguished, it is no longer published on the Commonwealth Register of LIs. Although 38/2004 was not published with an expiry date, it seems to no longer legally exist, and, of course, the AOCM is only an advisory document.
Maybe 38/2004 was not exempt from the automatic sunset clauses of the Legislative Instrument Act 2003, although I can't see immediately why that would be.
Maybe 38/2004 was not exempt from the automatic sunset clauses of the Legislative Instrument Act 2003, although I can't see immediately why that would be.
The sunset clause would keep it in place until 2020.