CAR 232...an Ausfly experience coming to you?
Stop scaremongering, kaz!
People don't want to know that even if the exemption is in force, all of this still applies to PVT GA aircraft:
People don't want to know that the CASA guidance on ramp checks is therefore accurate. Pilots of PVT GA aircraft can be asked to produce paper or electronic copies of the checklist of the procedures from the flight check system established by the operator, and those pilots risk being considered in breach of 232(3) if those copies can't be produced. And if the pilot can't produce the copies, s/he is going to have difficulty in explaining how s/he can comply with 232(4).
But relax: The CASA guidance on ramp checks and CAR 232 read in light of the exemption don't mean what they say.
People don't want to know that even if the exemption is in force, all of this still applies to PVT GA aircraft:
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) [exemption applies]
(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) [exemption applies]
(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.
(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) [exemption applies]
(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) [exemption applies]
(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.
But relax: The CASA guidance on ramp checks and CAR 232 read in light of the exemption don't mean what they say.
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Far out. I'm developing a headache. If we need this much debate over something as simple as whether we should be carrying a checklist, no wonder we're all lost on the rest of it. When I did my training, up to PPL you didn't need a written checklist, doing it from memory was ok. As soon as I started doing my CPL training, we were required to use a written checklist. Back then it seemed simple. PVT = no checklist. Commercial = checklist. Am I simplifying it too much..? Was I taught wrong..?
I suppose it depends on whether rote learned checklists count as being "carried in the aircraft" and "located where they will be available instantly to" the PVT pilot. If the pilot's head is in the aircraft, and the pilot's head contains the checklists established by the operator and the pilot can recall them instantly, I don't see why that shouldn't be enough.
I suppose we'll find out CASA's opinion on the question, the next time they ramp check a PVT flight and ask for written or electronic copies of checklists in accordance with ramp check guidance, and the pilot says: "It's all in my head!"
I suppose we'll find out CASA's opinion on the question, the next time they ramp check a PVT flight and ask for written or electronic copies of checklists in accordance with ramp check guidance, and the pilot says: "It's all in my head!"
I suppose it depends on whether rote learned checklists count as being "carried in the aircraft" and "located where they will be available instantly to" the PVT pilot. If the pilot's head is in the aircraft, and the pilot's head contains the checklists established by the operator and the pilot can recall them instantly, I don't see why that shouldn't be enough.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Victoria
Posts: 750
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
(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.
Kaz
Exactly Kaz! I stow all documents when doing aerobatics.
Talking with Colmar Brunton (for CASA's Safety Promotion communication research) so will include this topic.
Talking with Colmar Brunton (for CASA's Safety Promotion communication research) so will include this topic.
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.
Even I should read this more carefully. This exemption covers everyone NOT flying RPT
not involved in Regular Public Transport (RPT) operations
???Makes you feel real important challenge responding away to yourself in your complex C182. This issue highlights how piss poor our flight training regime has become. Admittedly, until this thread surfaced I did not know we all operated light aircraft under a blanket exemption...from a law written to capture RPT.....but now I know and I am armed with that knowledge.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"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."
Oz, does this mean everyone must have some sort of "Check System" in their Flight Manual??
As I read it, Catch 22 if your ramped..."May we see your flight manual"
Ah Ha!!..."Where is your flight check system"??
YES!! Your nicked you damned criminal, YES!! got another one!!
20 thousand penalty points, cough up you damned criminal!!
Oz, does this mean everyone must have some sort of "Check System" in their Flight Manual??
As I read it, Catch 22 if your ramped..."May we see your flight manual"
Ah Ha!!..."Where is your flight check system"??
YES!! Your nicked you damned criminal, YES!! got another one!!
20 thousand penalty points, cough up you damned criminal!!
Sky is going to fall in😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀
Ducky, there are a Thousand other tea cups! That is the problem.
Taken individually, yes. It's a storm in a tea cup. But isn't it the case that virtually every other regulation has similar exemptions attached to it? This is why we are drowning! There is no point in studying the regulations; they prohibit everything not covered by plain vanilla Qantas RPT.
The problem we have here is structural - whole swathes of the Aviation industry for example RAA and Experimental, exist only by virtue of exemptions!
Then there are the emerging technologies - UAV's, ADS -B, EFB's advanced EFIS, traffic information systems. etc. etc. The benefits of which cannot be harvested by Australian aviators without exemptions.
"So what" You say? The problem, Ducky, is that the use of exemptions by the regulator maximises risk to the regulated because, by definition, the making of an exemption is at the pleasure of the regulator. This is because an exemption is not yours by right, subject to natural justice, procedural fairness and the entire set of Weberian bureaucratic procedural rules. Furthermore, the exemption can be revoked just as easily as it is created.
And what does the heightened level of risk mean for the regulated? Why it means jobs, investment and growth Ducky. Do I need to talk about risk premiums and rates of returns? The use of exemptions in Australia means that any aviation investment in what in other jurisdictions would be risk free is fraught with risk in Australia because it has to rely on exemptions to be operated let alone earn a sufficient return. Just ask Dick Smith. Ask the bloke who wanted to operate single pilot light jets.
In my case I have spent some $60,000 and invested hours of my time to try and build something which may fly only by virtue of exemptions. That doesn't worry me too much because I needed the therapy of just building it. If it all gets too hard to jump through more hoops, I will simply chainsaw the structure and sell the motor and avionics or shove the whole thing in a container and give it away to some African missionaries.
However think about the opportunity costs for the entire industry - how many investments are NOT made simply because the potential investor gets one whiff of how CASA is going to regulate him and just walks away? That is why our "storm in a teacup" matters.
Taken individually, yes. It's a storm in a tea cup. But isn't it the case that virtually every other regulation has similar exemptions attached to it? This is why we are drowning! There is no point in studying the regulations; they prohibit everything not covered by plain vanilla Qantas RPT.
The problem we have here is structural - whole swathes of the Aviation industry for example RAA and Experimental, exist only by virtue of exemptions!
Then there are the emerging technologies - UAV's, ADS -B, EFB's advanced EFIS, traffic information systems. etc. etc. The benefits of which cannot be harvested by Australian aviators without exemptions.
"So what" You say? The problem, Ducky, is that the use of exemptions by the regulator maximises risk to the regulated because, by definition, the making of an exemption is at the pleasure of the regulator. This is because an exemption is not yours by right, subject to natural justice, procedural fairness and the entire set of Weberian bureaucratic procedural rules. Furthermore, the exemption can be revoked just as easily as it is created.
And what does the heightened level of risk mean for the regulated? Why it means jobs, investment and growth Ducky. Do I need to talk about risk premiums and rates of returns? The use of exemptions in Australia means that any aviation investment in what in other jurisdictions would be risk free is fraught with risk in Australia because it has to rely on exemptions to be operated let alone earn a sufficient return. Just ask Dick Smith. Ask the bloke who wanted to operate single pilot light jets.
In my case I have spent some $60,000 and invested hours of my time to try and build something which may fly only by virtue of exemptions. That doesn't worry me too much because I needed the therapy of just building it. If it all gets too hard to jump through more hoops, I will simply chainsaw the structure and sell the motor and avionics or shove the whole thing in a container and give it away to some African missionaries.
However think about the opportunity costs for the entire industry - how many investments are NOT made simply because the potential investor gets one whiff of how CASA is going to regulate him and just walks away? That is why our "storm in a teacup" matters.
Even I should read this more carefully.
Surely all you need to do is shout: THE EXEMPTION EXISTS.
Thorn bird, as someone pointed out a page ago.
To date, I have completed three special feature endorsments, I have passed my PPL and have had three AFRs...in all those assessments I have used a rote checklist. The aircraft I fly has a factory issued flight manual as well as a quick reference checklist...the manual is here...indicate...the quick ref check list is here...indicate. This is what you would say if you are DESCRIBING what you do and how your aircraft is equipped.
I have not studied the requirements for a kit built aircraft, I would understand there would have to be something on paper from the manufacturer as to the limitations placed on the aircraft by factory testing and design...same as section IV in all manuals. I would guess that anyone who builds their own aircraft would be creating a manual from derived data. The rote checklist would still stand.
To date, I have completed three special feature endorsments, I have passed my PPL and have had three AFRs...in all those assessments I have used a rote checklist. The aircraft I fly has a factory issued flight manual as well as a quick reference checklist...the manual is here...indicate...the quick ref check list is here...indicate. This is what you would say if you are DESCRIBING what you do and how your aircraft is equipped.
I have not studied the requirements for a kit built aircraft, I would understand there would have to be something on paper from the manufacturer as to the limitations placed on the aircraft by factory testing and design...same as section IV in all manuals. I would guess that anyone who builds their own aircraft would be creating a manual from derived data. The rote checklist would still stand.
You did lead with your chin...
Anyway, for all of this complexity, we still don't know the answer to a simple question: Does CASA consider that rote-learned checklists, alone, can satisfy the requirements of CAR 232, to the extent that those requirements apply to PVT GA pilots?
We know that CAR 232 applies universally. It's just that the exemption exempts certain aircraft operators and their pilots from some (but not all) bits of CAR 232.
We also know that CASA's guidance on ramp checks for GA pilots says that CASA will ask for written or electronic checklists, with no distinction between GA PVT and GA AWK/Charter etc.
So going by all that, you'd be forgiven for believing that CASA doesn't consider rote-learned checklists to be sufficient.
It would be so easy for CASA to make a statement clarifying its approach, one way or the other.
I have absolute confidence in Jabba's integrity and I have no doubt that he's had a word in the ear of someone important who's made some representations about what CASA will and won't do at AusFly. But is that the proper way to give industry confidence about the regulator's approach?
Anyway, for all of this complexity, we still don't know the answer to a simple question: Does CASA consider that rote-learned checklists, alone, can satisfy the requirements of CAR 232, to the extent that those requirements apply to PVT GA pilots?
We know that CAR 232 applies universally. It's just that the exemption exempts certain aircraft operators and their pilots from some (but not all) bits of CAR 232.
We also know that CASA's guidance on ramp checks for GA pilots says that CASA will ask for written or electronic checklists, with no distinction between GA PVT and GA AWK/Charter etc.
So going by all that, you'd be forgiven for believing that CASA doesn't consider rote-learned checklists to be sufficient.
It would be so easy for CASA to make a statement clarifying its approach, one way or the other.
I have absolute confidence in Jabba's integrity and I have no doubt that he's had a word in the ear of someone important who's made some representations about what CASA will and won't do at AusFly. But is that the proper way to give industry confidence about the regulator's approach?
Lead Balloon...I am in fierce agreement!
I see this all the time in other pastimes. I used to enjoy drag racing bigbore motorcycles....regretfully, so did a lot of outlaw motorcycle gangs. Many times I attended all bike meets that had big populations of gang members. It was only in Victoria that we were met with huge police presence to actively "discourage" participation by racers as well as spectators (cash source). Liberal interpretations on what described a road worthy vehicle. Best interpretation was...your spare tyre is not the same brand as your fitted tyres rewarded with a canary! Total BS!...but do you argue with a member of the Task Force?
...the guy with the tyres? He was the land owner! The task force defected the water truck which, effectively, cut off all the ablution blocks...public health? They tried everything to shut the show down...we never put on another one.
I see parallels in the actions of FOIs only at big gatherings of aircraft. Safety or discourage? I hope the SAAA has every and continued success with NRM. If allowed to develop, this could and will become our version of Osh!
I see this all the time in other pastimes. I used to enjoy drag racing bigbore motorcycles....regretfully, so did a lot of outlaw motorcycle gangs. Many times I attended all bike meets that had big populations of gang members. It was only in Victoria that we were met with huge police presence to actively "discourage" participation by racers as well as spectators (cash source). Liberal interpretations on what described a road worthy vehicle. Best interpretation was...your spare tyre is not the same brand as your fitted tyres rewarded with a canary! Total BS!...but do you argue with a member of the Task Force?
...the guy with the tyres? He was the land owner! The task force defected the water truck which, effectively, cut off all the ablution blocks...public health? They tried everything to shut the show down...we never put on another one.
I see parallels in the actions of FOIs only at big gatherings of aircraft. Safety or discourage? I hope the SAAA has every and continued success with NRM. If allowed to develop, this could and will become our version of Osh!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Victoria
Posts: 750
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Even I should read this more carefully. This exemption covers everyone NOT flying RPT
Even I should read this more carefully. This exemption covers everyone NOT flying RPT
So does my AFM exemption exempt me from complying with the condition in the CAR 232 exemption or should this situation be better categorised as an "exception" to avoid confusion?
Kaz
The flight manual for my airplane is a document controlled by the manufacturer and approved by the FAA; I have no authority to publish a change to it.
My recollection of CASA's view of Auster's etc without an AFM is that the placards provide sufficient information.
My recollection of CASA's view of Auster's etc without an AFM is that the placards provide sufficient information.
kaz3g,
And you probably don't have an Operations Manual either (because they are not required for private operation), in which to "affix" the document(s) required by the footnote.
Remember, an AFM in not an Operations Manual.
Remember, a "flight check system" is not just a checklist.
Another example of a rather silly "one size fits all" rule to assist CASA micromanagement of aviation, and then not even being able to write an exemption that is clear and unambiguous, and actually applies to those operation that CASA seeks to exempt from a rule that shouldn't be in the first place.
But we all know we are not supposed to know and understand, because aviation law "is for lawyers and judges, for the safe conviction of pilots and engineers".
Tootle pip!!
And you probably don't have an Operations Manual either (because they are not required for private operation), in which to "affix" the document(s) required by the footnote.
Remember, an AFM in not an Operations Manual.
Remember, a "flight check system" is not just a checklist.
Another example of a rather silly "one size fits all" rule to assist CASA micromanagement of aviation, and then not even being able to write an exemption that is clear and unambiguous, and actually applies to those operation that CASA seeks to exempt from a rule that shouldn't be in the first place.
But we all know we are not supposed to know and understand, because aviation law "is for lawyers and judges, for the safe conviction of pilots and engineers".
Tootle pip!!
On my reading of the exemption, the conditions apply only to commercial operations. But if that were intended, it could have been a stated a lot more clearly.
