ADOPTION OF US 14 Code of Federal Regulations 1 through 199, aka “The FARs”.
Thread Starter
ADOPTION OF US 14 Code of Federal Regulations 1 through 199, aka “The FARs”.
Folks,We HAVE ALREADY part done exactly this, it has been there, on our books, since 1998, most of you either don’t know or have forgotten, or never noticed in the first place.
It’s called Civil Aviation Safety Regulations Parts 21 to 35, just have a look at the CASA web site. Parts 23-35 are (the equivalent of) the FARs 23-35, adopted by reference.
A huge precedent to throw back at the nay-sayers.
BUT, it took a huge political campaign to force the changes through, with ferocious opposition from the Can’tberra middle level CASA bureaucracy at every stage. No “public service” organisation willingly surrenders power, particularly when their public catchcry is “what about air safety”.
Since Federation, the Commonwealth of Australia has “adopted by reference” large slabs of foreign legislation that suited, often from USA, after all, why re-invent the wheel??
We have proved it to be straightforward in aviation, with none of the doomsday outcomes forecast by the opponents ever happening, as any sensible person would expect.
We did change some of Part 21, if you were from the US, you would immediately recognise the additional freedoms in the Australian Part 21, compared to USA, although the document as a whole would look very familiar.
The repeal of the old CARs produced immediate benefits for all sectors of aviation, it transformed the economics of the B-767-200/300 on the Australian register, just one example. The benefits to GA were massive, with cost saving being to the fore.
It transformed amateur building in Australia, tossing out (repealing) all the Australian unique restrictions.
It gave then AUF, now RAOz its 19- register, that transformed amateur building on this register, as well as amateur built on the VH- register.
The huge expansion in the operation of ex-military aircraft (aka “Warbirds”) would not have been possible without our changes to the US Part 21 before the Australian CASR 21 version became law.
The opposition from within the body of CASA was ferocious, as was the opposition from industry associations that stood to lose power and cash flow, ie: their “business mode” of income guaranteed by regulation (aka rent seeking) was largely eliminated.
Unsurprisingly, CASA and others have fought back for years, and sadly have been part successful, in winding back the freedoms and cost savings that went into place in mid-1998.
To adopt by reference other large slabs of the FARs (or better still NZ CARs --- which are largely the FARs cleaned up) will also meet ferocious opposition from CASA’s “iron ring” and other entities, but it just means that the political campaign has to be bigger and smarter.
And don’t forget, the SAFETY CARD is in our hands, the US has better air safety outcomes in every sector of aviation, compared to Australia, a drum that should be banged very loud!!
It’s called Civil Aviation Safety Regulations Parts 21 to 35, just have a look at the CASA web site. Parts 23-35 are (the equivalent of) the FARs 23-35, adopted by reference.
A huge precedent to throw back at the nay-sayers.
BUT, it took a huge political campaign to force the changes through, with ferocious opposition from the Can’tberra middle level CASA bureaucracy at every stage. No “public service” organisation willingly surrenders power, particularly when their public catchcry is “what about air safety”.
Since Federation, the Commonwealth of Australia has “adopted by reference” large slabs of foreign legislation that suited, often from USA, after all, why re-invent the wheel??
We have proved it to be straightforward in aviation, with none of the doomsday outcomes forecast by the opponents ever happening, as any sensible person would expect.
We did change some of Part 21, if you were from the US, you would immediately recognise the additional freedoms in the Australian Part 21, compared to USA, although the document as a whole would look very familiar.
The repeal of the old CARs produced immediate benefits for all sectors of aviation, it transformed the economics of the B-767-200/300 on the Australian register, just one example. The benefits to GA were massive, with cost saving being to the fore.
It transformed amateur building in Australia, tossing out (repealing) all the Australian unique restrictions.
It gave then AUF, now RAOz its 19- register, that transformed amateur building on this register, as well as amateur built on the VH- register.
The huge expansion in the operation of ex-military aircraft (aka “Warbirds”) would not have been possible without our changes to the US Part 21 before the Australian CASR 21 version became law.
The opposition from within the body of CASA was ferocious, as was the opposition from industry associations that stood to lose power and cash flow, ie: their “business mode” of income guaranteed by regulation (aka rent seeking) was largely eliminated.
Unsurprisingly, CASA and others have fought back for years, and sadly have been part successful, in winding back the freedoms and cost savings that went into place in mid-1998.
To adopt by reference other large slabs of the FARs (or better still NZ CARs --- which are largely the FARs cleaned up) will also meet ferocious opposition from CASA’s “iron ring” and other entities, but it just means that the political campaign has to be bigger and smarter.
And don’t forget, the SAFETY CARD is in our hands, the US has better air safety outcomes in every sector of aviation, compared to Australia, a drum that should be banged very loud!!
What LeadSled said! 
I like the idea though of adopting the NZ CARs, as it would result in a better-harmonised regional set of aviation regulatory requirements (e., NZ - Australia - PNG).
I like the idea though of adopting the NZ CARs, as it would result in a better-harmonised regional set of aviation regulatory requirements (e., NZ - Australia - PNG).
While the NZ rules would be a big step up from the dross CASA dish out if we are going to go to the effort of changing we should do it once and adopt the FAA ones with as little modification as necessary. Harmonizing regionally will lead to a substandard outcome.
Please try to refrain from doing that, no_one. It’s the kind of division and nitpicking that is music to the ears of bureaucrats and ministerial advisers who want to divide and conquer.
Try to understand this: It would be a massive step forward if we could terminate the sick, expensive joke and hoax that is the regulatory ‘reform’ program. It would save the industry millions and would reduce the scope for more unnecessary complexity in the name of simplicity and safety. There is only one group of people that benefit from the regulatory reform program: That group ain’t the industry. But the industry pays for it.
I wouldn’t care if the Zimbabwean civil aviation rules were adopted by reference. At least we’d save around 20 million each year in bureaucratically-created regulatory ‘reform’ that’s a self-licking ice cream.
Be united in the overarching principle. Tweak the details after the principle has been implemented.
Try to understand this: It would be a massive step forward if we could terminate the sick, expensive joke and hoax that is the regulatory ‘reform’ program. It would save the industry millions and would reduce the scope for more unnecessary complexity in the name of simplicity and safety. There is only one group of people that benefit from the regulatory reform program: That group ain’t the industry. But the industry pays for it.
I wouldn’t care if the Zimbabwean civil aviation rules were adopted by reference. At least we’d save around 20 million each year in bureaucratically-created regulatory ‘reform’ that’s a self-licking ice cream.
Be united in the overarching principle. Tweak the details after the principle has been implemented.
Last edited by Lead Balloon; 19th May 2018 at 11:02. Reason: Left out “be”!
LB,
My apologies, I didn't mean to drag the discussion into the detail but wanted to point out that the NZ rules have their own version of regulatory interference.
Changing the act needs to be the main aim and focus.
My apologies, I didn't mean to drag the discussion into the detail but wanted to point out that the NZ rules have their own version of regulatory interference.
Changing the act needs to be the main aim and focus.
No worries.
Every country will ‘have their own version of regulatory interference’.
That’s because all rules are, ultimately, about politics.
Every country will ‘have their own version of regulatory interference’.
That’s because all rules are, ultimately, about politics.
Thread Starter
At a meeting at Bankstown, Kim Beazley, then leader of the opposition, and as a former Minister for Transport who had no time for the CAA/CASA, made the following observation: "In the US, aviation is so large the bureaucrats can't micromanage it, in Australia it is so small they can, and because they can, they do".
This, and the fact that the military have has an entirely disproportionate influence of CASA (Australian civil aviation started out as a branch of the military, one Colonel Horace Brinsmead was the first "Controller of Civil Aviation") are two more vital battles to be fought and won, but it must start with a workable set of rules.
Which, as Lead Balloon correctly points out, would eliminate a make-work program costing $20M plus per year to produce unworkable nonsense, which has driven heavy maintenance off-shore, and is driving GA into a "graveyard" spiral.
In 1998, when the remit of the PAP/CASA Review finished, we left a Part 91, and Parts 66/43/145 ready to go, they were based on the US equivalent, but further simplified. I probably even have copies on an old hard drive or disk somewhere.
Somebody needs to get the message to McCormack that this was all done as Lib/Nats. Government policy under Nationals Ministers, all he need to do is talk to John Sharp and Mark Vaile, and take up where they left off --- they and their PAP were not snowed by the bureaucracy.
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Toowoomba
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What a good idea adopting the US regs would be. Then take an ax to the ones we don't need. Could we also stop the CASA fragmentation of private/recreational/sport aviation into little fiefdoms, each of which jealously guards their little (largely illusory) "freedoms" by trying ever so hard to out CASA, CASA. It is OK to roll over and have your tummy tickled, fellas but you don't need to hump CASA's leg. I'm looking at RAAus and GFA here.
If we want some kind of aviation manufcatring industry we are going to have to change the entire CASA funding model too. If the people of Australia demand aviation regulation *they* need to pay for it out of consolidated revenue. At present the industry is forced to pay for its own embuggerment. "User pays" was one of a long line of Malcolm Fraser's bad ideas.
And, Dear God, DO NOT GO ANYWHERE NEAR THE NZ WAY.
If we want some kind of aviation manufcatring industry we are going to have to change the entire CASA funding model too. If the people of Australia demand aviation regulation *they* need to pay for it out of consolidated revenue. At present the industry is forced to pay for its own embuggerment. "User pays" was one of a long line of Malcolm Fraser's bad ideas.
And, Dear God, DO NOT GO ANYWHERE NEAR THE NZ WAY.
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
I wonder how long it would take to do a regulatory review of the FARs in case thy don't work in our air.
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
OK, I see. Maybe a review into how long a new review would take.
AOPA USA= one week perhaps. AOPAA perhaps 8 days. CASA, ...well...30 years.
Then that review would need implemented... OK, stupid question in the first place.
Where there is NO will with those that can make a difference, there is NO way, But I sincerely wish those fighting this monster the best. I wish I could help. but I'm too old cranky and crook. Good luck!
AOPA USA= one week perhaps. AOPAA perhaps 8 days. CASA, ...well...30 years.
Then that review would need implemented... OK, stupid question in the first place.
Where there is NO will with those that can make a difference, there is NO way, But I sincerely wish those fighting this monster the best. I wish I could help. but I'm too old cranky and crook. Good luck!
Thread Starter
Folks,
A "little bird" tells me that CASA wants to divide "private flying " from all other flying, with a very limited definition of "private flying" , being limited to something like 1500 kg, four place. Whether night of IFR being included is apparently a matter of contention. This would all be run by RAOz, including flying training. Operations in "controlled airspace" ??
"Everything else" would be conducted on an "AOC" ?? In part, this was seen as the answer to the problems of CAR 206.
Would this mean an Australian Private Pilot Certificate (not license) would not be valid outside Australia ---- this bit would be right back to the 1950s, when the individual permission of the Director General of the Department of Civil Aviation was required for most (not just PPL) Australian pilots to fly outside Australia, unless employed by an airline with an international airline license. Likewise flying a VH- aircraft outside Australia, I have probably still got my original copy of the then current ANRs, with that provision.
This is another example of how hard it is to kill a bad idea once it is touted around the Glass Castle.
Back in early 2000s, there was a proposal to limit "private flying" to "recreational use only" of an aircraft, with occupants limited to the "owner" and his (apparently a female owner of an aircraft was too hard for CASA to contemplate) immediate family.
Everything else, or any aircraft that attracted any tax deduction (what has that got to with "air safety") would be subject to operations on a range of new fangled AOCs.
This latest nonsense takes us even further away from any kind of international harmonisation. or ICAO compliance.
But it would stop pesky Australians having a flying holiday in US, then coming back and telling everybody how great, simple, straightforward good fun it all was, staring with the aviation friendly FAA.
Tootle pip!!
A "little bird" tells me that CASA wants to divide "private flying " from all other flying, with a very limited definition of "private flying" , being limited to something like 1500 kg, four place. Whether night of IFR being included is apparently a matter of contention. This would all be run by RAOz, including flying training. Operations in "controlled airspace" ??
"Everything else" would be conducted on an "AOC" ?? In part, this was seen as the answer to the problems of CAR 206.
Would this mean an Australian Private Pilot Certificate (not license) would not be valid outside Australia ---- this bit would be right back to the 1950s, when the individual permission of the Director General of the Department of Civil Aviation was required for most (not just PPL) Australian pilots to fly outside Australia, unless employed by an airline with an international airline license. Likewise flying a VH- aircraft outside Australia, I have probably still got my original copy of the then current ANRs, with that provision.
This is another example of how hard it is to kill a bad idea once it is touted around the Glass Castle.
Back in early 2000s, there was a proposal to limit "private flying" to "recreational use only" of an aircraft, with occupants limited to the "owner" and his (apparently a female owner of an aircraft was too hard for CASA to contemplate) immediate family.
Everything else, or any aircraft that attracted any tax deduction (what has that got to with "air safety") would be subject to operations on a range of new fangled AOCs.
This latest nonsense takes us even further away from any kind of international harmonisation. or ICAO compliance.
But it would stop pesky Australians having a flying holiday in US, then coming back and telling everybody how great, simple, straightforward good fun it all was, staring with the aviation friendly FAA.
Tootle pip!!
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
Hypothetically, I win Lotto and engage a personal assistant with an IFR PPL to fly my new TBM 10000 (yes, it's coming). Do I need an AOC? and if so, decide to register my TBM in the US and engage a KIWI personal assistant, can I be flown to Tasmania to see the Devil mating spectacular from Canberra? Or do I need the permission of the RA OZ "Feldwebel?
Thread Starter
Hypothetically, I win Lotto and engage a personal assistant with an IFR PPL to fly my new TBM 10000 (yes, it's coming). Do I need an AOC? and if so, decide to register my TBM in the US and engage a KIWI personal assistant, can I be flown to Tasmania to see the Devil mating spectacular from Canberra? Or do I need the permission of the RA OZ "Feldwebel?
I am pretty/almost/kinda' certain the answer is yes/no/maybe/which day of the week is it/which region are you in/ who is the FOI you drew -- short straw?
Just put it on the NZ register, and have your NZ personal assistant PPL (not personal pilot) fly it as a private operation. And, of course have it maintained by an NZ CAA registered Au/whereever LAME/A&P. Plenty around.
Tootle pip!!
A "little bird" tells me that CASA wants to divide "private flying " from all other flying, with a very limited definition of "private flying" , being limited to something like 1500 kg, four place. Whether night of IFR being included is apparently a matter of contention. This would all be run by RAOz, including flying training.
....By pandering to an Associations greed and lust for power.
First test: will the GA associations stick together or will they break ranks and lunge for a self interested prize?
My guess is that RAA will fold and grab for it.
I can see why CASA would think this way; RAA has a big membership base and what's left of GA after they were split off can be swept into a small dustbin. It would be a minimal change at CASA, but it would confirm Australia as a bizarre aviation environment while destroying any hope of jobs investment and growth in the GA sector.
Off topic but Qantas, Virgin, Rex and Co. probably couldn't give a rats backside about the rules and regulations because they act as a very efficient economic barrier to entry against any potential new market entrants.
Last edited by Sunfish; 22nd May 2018 at 22:28.
