View Poll Results: Have CASA achieved clear and concise aviation safety standards as per the Act?
Yes, they have
21
2.15%
No, they have not
893
91.22%
Don't know/undecided
5
0.51%
Should Australia adopt the New Zealand Regs?
60
6.13%
Voters: 979. This poll is closed
A Quick "poll" if you have a moment. Much appreciated
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: A pothole on the information superhighway
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe you should have had a third option "Don't know or undecided" to cater for all those (I suspect the vast majority) who have had little or no involvement interpreting the regs..
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unless this has just come into effect ,something doesn't sound correct here. As 90% of the single engine GA fleet wouldn't have 2 red strobes. What they have is usually 1 red beacon (a flashing red lamp not strobe) on the fin or top of the fuselage. Some aircraft also have white strobes on the wing tips but probably less than 50% in total. Plus ofcourse nav lights.
The CAR does say "unless CASA otherwise directs..." very frequently, so it's quite possible that elsewhere they do direct users to fit different lights. Where? How is anyone meant to find that? The only other place I can see that would be relevant is CAO 20.18 (minimum equipment), but that doesn't really say much (it says that IFR aircraft must have the equipment specified in CAR 196, but it doesn't say that VFR aircraft don't need to have that).
I also found it interesting that CASA explicitly says that anti-collision lights must be displayed in conditions of poor visibility. Piper (in the PA-28 POH) and Cessna (in the C172 POH) both state that the beacon should NOT be used in cloud...
I could find no mention of exterior lighting in the Bob Tait BAK and PPL books, nor in the Aviation Theory Centre IFR book (I checked in these on the basis that they might point me to the relevant CAR/CASR/CAO section). I wonder whether that means that they're as confused as I am.
It feels like it should be fairly straightforward for CASA to create a website/app where you put in your aircraft and route details (eg. "I have a Cessna 206, I want to fly it privately in IFR conditions from Bankstown to Camden with four people onboard") and it tells you exactly what you need. What equipment, what endorsements, what renewals and what timeframes those have, what medical certificate, how much excess fuel, etc - with references to the relevant sections of the official regulations. That would be clear and concise.
Last edited by Slatye; 27th Mar 2019 at 09:53.
Piston_Broke, I would suggest that the reason many people just don't care is they see no hope for the future of aviation on Australia. Understandable that they feel that way as I do at times. However they need to suck it up and take a stand against CASA idiots or the future they fear will become self evident.
Piston_Broke, I would suggest that the reason many people just don't care is they see no hope for the future of aviation on Australia. Understandable that they feel that way as I do at times. However they need to suck it up and take a stand against CASA idiots or the future they fear will become self evident.
Tho' at least one person here on PPRuNe is doing just that. I refer to the thread: "CASA Avmed - In my opinion, a biased, intellectually dishonest regulator."
Join Date: May 2018
Location: Sydney
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Regarding the issue of strict liability, does any other country apply it to aviation as Australia does?
I have done a quick Google search for it and Australia seems to be the only one doing so. So much for aligning our regulations with current world or best practice. I came across an article in the Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy's winter 1997 titled "Maintaining Air Safety at Less Cost: A Plan for Replacing FAA Safety Regulations with Strict Liability", from which I have excerpted the following:
Additionally, strict liability contravenes attribution theory. Pilot negligence rules should provide realistic and achievable goals within the locus of control of pilots. In contrast, strict liability targets individuals regardless of whether the blameworthy agents were within the loci of control of those individuals. Hence, strict liability offers no incentives to eliminate negligent conduct.
To summarize, aviation strict liability is not a viable legal principle. From any viewpoint, general aviation is no longer an uncommon and hazardous activity. State common law recognizes this fact, but statutory strict liability does not. Furthermore, strict liability contributes nothing to the quest for greater safety, but tends the other way, to keep aviation dangerous. Hence, it is an antiquated doctrine that needs a funeral.
There you have it: CASA's new (antiquated) regulatory framework.
I have done a quick Google search for it and Australia seems to be the only one doing so. So much for aligning our regulations with current world or best practice. I came across an article in the Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy's winter 1997 titled "Maintaining Air Safety at Less Cost: A Plan for Replacing FAA Safety Regulations with Strict Liability", from which I have excerpted the following:
Additionally, strict liability contravenes attribution theory. Pilot negligence rules should provide realistic and achievable goals within the locus of control of pilots. In contrast, strict liability targets individuals regardless of whether the blameworthy agents were within the loci of control of those individuals. Hence, strict liability offers no incentives to eliminate negligent conduct.
To summarize, aviation strict liability is not a viable legal principle. From any viewpoint, general aviation is no longer an uncommon and hazardous activity. State common law recognizes this fact, but statutory strict liability does not. Furthermore, strict liability contributes nothing to the quest for greater safety, but tends the other way, to keep aviation dangerous. Hence, it is an antiquated doctrine that needs a funeral.
There you have it: CASA's new (antiquated) regulatory framework.
141.200 Part 141 operators—instructors—training in human factors principles and non‑technical skills
(1) A Part 141 operator commits an offence if:
(a) an instructor for the operator conducts authorised Part 141 flight training for the operator; and
(b) the instructor does not meet the requirements in the operator’s operations manual about training in human factors principles and non‑technical skills.
Penalty: 50 penalty units.
(2) An offence against this regulation is an offence of strict liability
142.335 Part 142 operators—instructors and examiners—training in human factors principles and non‑technical skills
(1) A Part 142 operator commits an offence if:
(a) an instructor or examiner for the operator conducts an authorised Part 142 activity for the operator; and
(b) the instructor or examiner does not meet the requirements in the operator’s exposition about training in human factors principles and non‑technical skills.
Penalty: 50 penalty units.
(2) An offence against this regulation is an offence of strict liability.
Pity CASA don't subscribe to the culture they want us to comply with.
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Australia
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re an option for “Don’t know / Unsure”; I would be willing to wager that this is where most GA and many commercial pilots sit.
After all, why would we ever delve into the reg’s unless we really had to? Only when you get stuck into the issue in some detail (sitting an air law exam at any level, figuring out what you can or cannot do as an operator, instructor etc) do you realise just how incredibly convoluted, inconsistent and obtusely shambolic it all is.
Our regulations are absolutely not clear and are manifestly not concise.
After all, why would we ever delve into the reg’s unless we really had to? Only when you get stuck into the issue in some detail (sitting an air law exam at any level, figuring out what you can or cannot do as an operator, instructor etc) do you realise just how incredibly convoluted, inconsistent and obtusely shambolic it all is.
Our regulations are absolutely not clear and are manifestly not concise.
What about the ‘yes’ voters?
The ‘yes’ voters could only vote yes for ‘clear and concise’ for the following reasons:-
1. They have no standard reference point or historical knowledge to compare therefore their vote is meaningless.
2. They have a vested interest therefore their vote is meaningless.
3. They pressed the wrong button therefore their vote is meaningless.
4. They are mischievous or dull and therefore their vote is meaningless.
5. They always say yes to everything hoping that something might fall into their laps that they don’t have to pay for, therefore their vote is meaningless.
The attached illustrations convey some of the Government’s written intentions via the vehicle of the day (CAA & CASA). Its obvious that there was never any honest attempt to make good on the promises. Today CASA has still not finished rewriting the rules, a task more than thirty years on, probably the longest running make work program in Commonwealth history. CASA as an independent corporation is a model of governance that is incapable of administering aviation in a rational manner, let alone write intelligible rules. The current rules, inappropriately migrated into the criminal code and made strict liability, are a horrendous and incomprehensible mis mash and have smashed a perfectly good industry with great losses of jobs and services.
1. They have no standard reference point or historical knowledge to compare therefore their vote is meaningless.
2. They have a vested interest therefore their vote is meaningless.
3. They pressed the wrong button therefore their vote is meaningless.
4. They are mischievous or dull and therefore their vote is meaningless.
5. They always say yes to everything hoping that something might fall into their laps that they don’t have to pay for, therefore their vote is meaningless.
The attached illustrations convey some of the Government’s written intentions via the vehicle of the day (CAA & CASA). Its obvious that there was never any honest attempt to make good on the promises. Today CASA has still not finished rewriting the rules, a task more than thirty years on, probably the longest running make work program in Commonwealth history. CASA as an independent corporation is a model of governance that is incapable of administering aviation in a rational manner, let alone write intelligible rules. The current rules, inappropriately migrated into the criminal code and made strict liability, are a horrendous and incomprehensible mis mash and have smashed a perfectly good industry with great losses of jobs and services.
What would happen without CASA and it’s regulations?
Consider that CASA disappears, all employees are paid out with lots of golden handshakes.
Yes of course some government agency has to provide ‘rules of the air.’ Aruba in the Caribbean has about 100 pages to deal with that and ICAO will provide lots of detail where needed particularly for international operations. Our current Trans Tasman Mutual Recognition Act (thnx ref LS) with New Zealand (only covers airlines at present) could be expanded to cover GA and therefore there could be an option to take on board the NZ rules.
Or we could have rules of the air in a similar fashion to that of road rules. Common usage would in practice deal with the immediate needs of the industry. In other words the industry would continue in much the same way as now. All operators would need to follow equipment manufacturers recommendations or face common law sanction.
As one well known lawyer and pilot told me about aviation law is that criminal acts are across the board. I took his comments to mean that any obviously dangerous, wilful or negligent acts in any field are illegal and therefore most of the excruciatingly complex regulations that CASA has migrated, inappropriately, to the criminal code (strict liability, also inappropriate) are not necessary.
The insurance companies would fill in a lot of the gaps. In France much of the building code is provided by insurance companies which is logical because they have a vested interest in the safety of the buildings that they insure. Now I hear some saying that certain individuals and companies will go without insurance. My view is that its easy these days to enquire of any service providers, such as flying schools or airlines if they are insured. If there is no answer then your choice is informed.
What we could say, without a doubt, there would be an expansion in GA in most if its forms, particularly in training and aircraft building. New aircraft, with few exceptions, would only be successfull if they were safe, and meeting known standards for the obvious reasons, including the ability to be insured.
Finally I would contend, with benefit of many years of GA business, that the public are very much alive to the risks of GA flying and will choose very carefully. Today’s world is different, information is ubiquitous and available instantaneously.
As others have noted, CASA goes to inordinate lengths in it’s human factors instructor training, on pain of criminal charge (massive penalty) if not complied with, to emphasise open acknowledgement of mistakes in the laudable effort to create continued improvement. However, as is easy to see, this is a construct that cannot work. The fear of a criminal conviction which may cruel one’s career, and prevent travel to many countries, is virtually a guarantee that CASA’s intent is simply a torpedo with an irreversible hard wired navigation system to return it to the tube from whence it came.
Yes of course some government agency has to provide ‘rules of the air.’ Aruba in the Caribbean has about 100 pages to deal with that and ICAO will provide lots of detail where needed particularly for international operations. Our current Trans Tasman Mutual Recognition Act (thnx ref LS) with New Zealand (only covers airlines at present) could be expanded to cover GA and therefore there could be an option to take on board the NZ rules.
Or we could have rules of the air in a similar fashion to that of road rules. Common usage would in practice deal with the immediate needs of the industry. In other words the industry would continue in much the same way as now. All operators would need to follow equipment manufacturers recommendations or face common law sanction.
As one well known lawyer and pilot told me about aviation law is that criminal acts are across the board. I took his comments to mean that any obviously dangerous, wilful or negligent acts in any field are illegal and therefore most of the excruciatingly complex regulations that CASA has migrated, inappropriately, to the criminal code (strict liability, also inappropriate) are not necessary.
The insurance companies would fill in a lot of the gaps. In France much of the building code is provided by insurance companies which is logical because they have a vested interest in the safety of the buildings that they insure. Now I hear some saying that certain individuals and companies will go without insurance. My view is that its easy these days to enquire of any service providers, such as flying schools or airlines if they are insured. If there is no answer then your choice is informed.
What we could say, without a doubt, there would be an expansion in GA in most if its forms, particularly in training and aircraft building. New aircraft, with few exceptions, would only be successfull if they were safe, and meeting known standards for the obvious reasons, including the ability to be insured.
Finally I would contend, with benefit of many years of GA business, that the public are very much alive to the risks of GA flying and will choose very carefully. Today’s world is different, information is ubiquitous and available instantaneously.
As others have noted, CASA goes to inordinate lengths in it’s human factors instructor training, on pain of criminal charge (massive penalty) if not complied with, to emphasise open acknowledgement of mistakes in the laudable effort to create continued improvement. However, as is easy to see, this is a construct that cannot work. The fear of a criminal conviction which may cruel one’s career, and prevent travel to many countries, is virtually a guarantee that CASA’s intent is simply a torpedo with an irreversible hard wired navigation system to return it to the tube from whence it came.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: AUSTRALIA
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For many in this community nothing is clear and concise - including their own arguments.
Sadly the poll really is meaningless.
This is an international forum, anyone can join whether involved in the aviation industry or not, and it would seem people are able to vote multiple times and I'm not sure one even has to be logged in.
Having worked with statistics and evaluation of same, careful attention need to be given to the questions asked as someone mentioned previously, and in particular control exercised over the voting process so that the correct audience are being polled.
A stroll through the Comlaw site will show the CASA's regs are really no worse or better than others. Perhaps the OP's "young lawyer" is a recently minted graduate.
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have a CPL (H) and am in the middle of a law degree. In light of the Rossair accident, I was very interested to read new legislation released by CASA but I must admit it took a while to work out what they were really trying to say. My vote is an emphatic no. Here is the link to the legislation update. See what you think? Was it OK for a CASA FOI to be checking the Chief Pilot who was checking the pilot on an induction flight???
https://l.messenger.com/l.php?u=http...FNgBQ2vsHU4GTw
https://l.messenger.com/l.php?u=http...FNgBQ2vsHU4GTw
NO, NO, HELL NO.
Ask three CASA FOIs the same question and you get three different answers. Lack of training, lack of standardisation. Not their fault.
Deal with head office CASA in Canberra, then one of their capital city offices; you get two different demands for the same application or approval. Very much their fault.
Among the FOIs there are a few good people in CASA, but sadly they are stymied by overall organisational dysfunction. Team Leaders (or whatever they call them these days) live in their own silos and, like politicians, are all about covering their own sad arses.
USELESS.
Ask three CASA FOIs the same question and you get three different answers. Lack of training, lack of standardisation. Not their fault.
Deal with head office CASA in Canberra, then one of their capital city offices; you get two different demands for the same application or approval. Very much their fault.
Among the FOIs there are a few good people in CASA, but sadly they are stymied by overall organisational dysfunction. Team Leaders (or whatever they call them these days) live in their own silos and, like politicians, are all about covering their own sad arses.
USELESS.
Moderator
They have been re-writing the regulations to make them clearer and more concise for decades - a project that has always been 'soon to be completed' since the early 1990s. I think the last statement to the recent senate review was there was only 5% left to do.
In those famous words from the then CASA Director in the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee hearings of 14 February 2005 .......
Senator MARK BISHOP—Now that [the Regulatory Reform Program] has been refocused away from a timely conclusion, what is the new completion date and how is it proposed to stop it drifting along forever?
Mr Byron—We do not have a firm completion date at this stage, but we should be able to generate that fairly soon. Mr Gemmell mentioned the refocus, I suppose, that I imposed on the organisation in late 2003-04 on getting the rules right and getting the quality. I found it necessary late last year to articulate in a bit more detail some guiding principles about how I wanted that done and who I wanted to be involved in the process.
I have issued some guiding principles on the formulation of new regulations and, if necessary, manuals of standards that accompany them. I have, I suppose, imposed on the system an additional layer of consultation, to assure me that the final draft rules that I send to the minister for consideration by the parliament are the right ones and that they address very carefully risks that are real and necessary issues that must be picked up by regulations. I felt it was necessary to do that to make sure that I have the right rules. I am not going to put my signature to anything that I do not think adequately addresses safety issues.
Senator MARK BISHOP—When do you think those regulations will go to the minister?
Mr Byron—I anticipate we would start sending some of them from about the middle of this year. I do not see this delaying the overall program excessively. We have an action item to develop a plan to forward to the minister about when we plan to have them to the minister, and I assume that plan would be done in the next couple of months. I would be hopeful that it would not be long after early 2006 that most of the draft rules are delivered to the minister.
Mr Byron—We do not have a firm completion date at this stage, but we should be able to generate that fairly soon. Mr Gemmell mentioned the refocus, I suppose, that I imposed on the organisation in late 2003-04 on getting the rules right and getting the quality. I found it necessary late last year to articulate in a bit more detail some guiding principles about how I wanted that done and who I wanted to be involved in the process.
I have issued some guiding principles on the formulation of new regulations and, if necessary, manuals of standards that accompany them. I have, I suppose, imposed on the system an additional layer of consultation, to assure me that the final draft rules that I send to the minister for consideration by the parliament are the right ones and that they address very carefully risks that are real and necessary issues that must be picked up by regulations. I felt it was necessary to do that to make sure that I have the right rules. I am not going to put my signature to anything that I do not think adequately addresses safety issues.
Senator MARK BISHOP—When do you think those regulations will go to the minister?
Mr Byron—I anticipate we would start sending some of them from about the middle of this year. I do not see this delaying the overall program excessively. We have an action item to develop a plan to forward to the minister about when we plan to have them to the minister, and I assume that plan would be done in the next couple of months. I would be hopeful that it would not be long after early 2006 that most of the draft rules are delivered to the minister.
Back when I were but a boy, the old DCA was known as the Department of Constant Aggravation. They placed some extra demands on operators even then, like requiring every light aircraft to have a Flight Manual done to their format. A manufacturer POH was not good enough. Also their own P charts to add fudge factors to takeoff and landing numbers.
But, we could live with them.
FOIs were active in doing ramp checks and would jump aboard occasionally to run surveillance on flying activities. If you were caught a bit overloaded (as we often were) you would be hauled in for tea and bickies then sent on your way.
Once I landed an Aztec on a dirt road out in the scrub because I was caught short by the previous night’s curry. A diligent Flight Service Officer working HF radio figured out that I was nowhere near any airstrip and dobbed me in.
Hauled in for more tea and bickies. The FOI held my licence over a shredder while asking me several questions on what constituted an Authorised Landing Area.
At least they had a sense of humour.
But, we could live with them.
FOIs were active in doing ramp checks and would jump aboard occasionally to run surveillance on flying activities. If you were caught a bit overloaded (as we often were) you would be hauled in for tea and bickies then sent on your way.
Once I landed an Aztec on a dirt road out in the scrub because I was caught short by the previous night’s curry. A diligent Flight Service Officer working HF radio figured out that I was nowhere near any airstrip and dobbed me in.
Hauled in for more tea and bickies. The FOI held my licence over a shredder while asking me several questions on what constituted an Authorised Landing Area.
At least they had a sense of humour.