Part 61
Thread Starter
Part 61
Just trying to get my head around Part 61, so I’ve started with “Definitions”:
“Endorsement - means a flight crew endorsement “
”flight crew endorsement means endorsement granted under this part..”
”rating means a flight crew rating”
”type rating means a pilot type rating or a flight engineer type rating”
I could go on and on here but needless to say I haven’t found much that helps in the “definitions”...
“Endorsement - means a flight crew endorsement “
”flight crew endorsement means endorsement granted under this part..”
”rating means a flight crew rating”
”type rating means a pilot type rating or a flight engineer type rating”
I could go on and on here but needless to say I haven’t found much that helps in the “definitions”...
Kelpie, it is simple really. NOT.
Think of a ‘rating’ as generic, as in instrument rating, instructor rating etc. Unless of course it is specific, as in type rating.
Then think of ‘endorsement’ as specific, as in spinning (versus aerobatic) unless of course it is generic, as in tailwheel, retractable gear etc.
Part 61 was written to mess with our minds. But wait, there’s more. Stand by for Part 121 which makes Part 61 a model of clarity by comparison.
Think of a ‘rating’ as generic, as in instrument rating, instructor rating etc. Unless of course it is specific, as in type rating.
Then think of ‘endorsement’ as specific, as in spinning (versus aerobatic) unless of course it is generic, as in tailwheel, retractable gear etc.
Part 61 was written to mess with our minds. But wait, there’s more. Stand by for Part 121 which makes Part 61 a model of clarity by comparison.
Thread Starter
Thanks Mach - I’ve had to refer to the CASA explanatory pamphlet from 2014 to understand the definitions. Even within the Part 61 document, the more I read, the more confused I become.....
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"IF" you ever get to the bottom of Part 61 or any other Part for that matter post it all here, plenty of us who have been in the industry for a 100 years would love to know what it all means !:-) CASA = Confusion And Suffering Aviation!
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
QUOTE:
Lead Balloon:
Thorn bird: Pages of regulations (1988 + 1998) plus civil aviation orders plus manuals of standards plus determinations, permissions, approvals and exemptions?
My estimate, based on a page count of the more substantial bits of the dog’s breakfast: Around 30,000 pages and growing.
I doubt whether anyone could reasonably be confident of knowing and understanding the entirety of the current Australian civil aviation regulatory regime. I would presume any claimant of that knowledge and understanding to be a psychopath or insane.
"...total of ALL material of a legislative or associated nature for Part 61 alone is now put at 6000+ pages..."
CASA LORE AND THE MYTH OF REFORM
At last count there were well over 10,000 pages of Australian aviation regulations, written by lawyers, for Lawyers, in the legalise language.
Lots of people from industry complained that the rules were indecipherable and inordinately complex.
CAsA has now embarked on a program to explain their rules in plain English so the people who don't speak legalise can understand them.
Which sort of begs the question, why were they not written in plain English in the first place?
CAsA maintains it's because of our Westminster system of government. Yet the Kiwi's managed it and I thought they had a very similar system as ours.
Seems like we took the best of British bureaucracy and refined it into a unique Australian art form.
It Cost almost half a billion dollars to write the rules they have enacted so far with more to follow, a lot more.
Are they going to expend a further half a billion dollars to explain Australian regulations so those that have to comply with them can understand them?
The sheer volume of the regulations makes it impossible to be in complete compliance. To comply you really need to understand the meaning and intent of the law, laws which are very opaque and ambiguous.
This means that at all times somewhere in Australia someone is unknowingly becoming a criminal because CAsA moved aviation law into the criminal code, one of the very few aviation regulators in the real world who have done so.
CAsA has morphed itself into an enforcement agency rather than a service provider and is currently employing a large number of enforcement officers, ex policemen and ex spooks to catch non-compliers. A very vexatious issue in the industry as the same entity that writes the law, enforces the law, an anathema to natural justice.
CAsA have a rather embarrassing record on the rare occasions they have dragged perceived miscreants before an actual real court. In an attempt to circumvent that, they reversed the tried and proven British convention of innocence until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt, to one of Strict Liability where your guilty until you prove yourself innocent.
Notwithstanding, courts can be a pain for CAsA. Rules of evidence apply, even though CAsA is a far from model litigant. With the public purse to draw on, and employing very expensive legal teams they can still quit often lose the argument.
When all else fails or seems likely to fail, they tend to use what they call “Administrative Action”.
Administrative Action is where the hierarchy of CAsA, the so called “Iron Ring” decide, independent of any scrutiny from a higher Authority, to suspend or cancel approvals, certificates or licences issued by them under the guise of an imminent risk to safety. Even the threat of this action has the affect of grounding an operation thus denying its revenue flow.
Aviation is an inordinately expensive industry to be involved in, cash flow is its lifeblood, very few in the industry can afford to remain grounded for very long.
CAsA can and do obfuscate, ignore and delay until their target becomes insolvent.
Access to real courts for small to medium operators is out of the question. Time is their enemy and legal costs.
They have the option of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, however evidential rules of a real court don’t apply there. Opinions, rumour and innuendo can be brought to bear with impunity.
A model litigant CAsA is not, even up to committing perjury, but even then they can often lose the argument. Generally though their victim goes broke before a case is even heard.
The huge volumes of regulations requires operators to produce massive volumes of company regulations to explain in plain English how their company and their employee's will comply with thousands of regulations written in a virtual foreign language.
Unfortunately many CAsA officers are not lawyers either and do not understand the legalise language. Their interpretation of the meaning of the law, even amongst themselves is variable and may not be the same interpretation as the industry
For this reason CAsA produces "Policies". Policies are used to explain in plain English what CAsA management considers the law to mean for selective regulations.
Unfortunately policies may not necessarily say what the law means.
The only way to determine exactly what the law means is by testing it in a court.
A court is a place where a panel of experts in the legalise language, called judges, determine what a law says in plain english.
Aviation is very complex and highly technical industry and though the panel of experts in the legalise language may determine what the law says, it needs other people to argue what the law actually means. These people are called lawyers.
Lawyers are people who have an understanding of legalise, but must be briefed by experts who understand technical matters.
Unfortunately not too many people in CAsA have a great understanding of technical matters, the real expertise lies with the industry, which may be a reason why they don't do so well in courts.
Unfortunately Lawyers cost a lot of money and not too many aviation operators can afford them, having spent all their money on proving to the regulator that they are at least capable of complying with the regulations that they don't understand or which defy logic. Also they have to employ a lot of unproductive people who's job it is to continually attempt to unravel what the regulations mean, amend the companies regulations in accordance with the constantly varying opinions of the ever changing parade of CAsA enforcement officers. Even then, after agreement is reached between CAsA officers and their industry counterparts that compliance is achieved, CAsA management, at any time, may countermand that, bringing an operation to a stop.
That is the sovereign risk facing anyone invested or contemplating investment in Aviation.
When regulations have a detrimental affect on an operator or unintended consequences become apparent, CAsA may issue exemptions to the law as opposed to amending the law. An expensive exercise and in reality only open to large operators, and the flawed law remains in force. ( think reg 206)
An exemption may be issued largely because big operators quite often have considerable political affiliations, which they might use to severely embarrass CAsA. Also CAsA dread being dragged before a panel of legalise language experts where it could become apparent that their regulations are in fact gobbledygook, which would really be extremely embarrassing.
Some would say the above is a product of my warped imagination. I'm prepared to accept that.
CAsA however will never admit their warped attempts at regulation are in any way gobbledygook nor fit for purpose, nor that they are morally corrupt.
That their complex amateur regulations have unnecessarily destroyed many viable businesses, stifled investment and thrown a lot of people onto the Dole queue, as well as costing the Australian taxpayer a lot of unnecessary wasteful expense.
CASR Part 61 relating to flight crew standards and its attendant Manual of Standards are a classic example of exactly why Australia has become a bit of an international joke. CAsA requires thousands of pages to enunciate what the Americans and New Zealand can do in less than a hundred and still achieve better safety outcomes than us.
CAsA maintain they regulate for safety, which must allegedly be their only consideration. That’s a noble ambition, but why does it take CAsA tens of thousands of pages of indecipherable gobbledygook, which heaps enormous compliance costs and complexity on industry, to achieve a safety record no better than the US or NZ with less than a thousand pages in total?
There has been much talk about high airfares in regional Australia.
When one compares our ticket price against the US for a comparable journey one could ponder how do they manage to do it so cheaply?
What I have never heard from any inquiry is what percentage the cost of compliance adds to a ticket price in Australia.
Lead Balloon:
Thorn bird: Pages of regulations (1988 + 1998) plus civil aviation orders plus manuals of standards plus determinations, permissions, approvals and exemptions?
My estimate, based on a page count of the more substantial bits of the dog’s breakfast: Around 30,000 pages and growing.
I doubt whether anyone could reasonably be confident of knowing and understanding the entirety of the current Australian civil aviation regulatory regime. I would presume any claimant of that knowledge and understanding to be a psychopath or insane.
"...total of ALL material of a legislative or associated nature for Part 61 alone is now put at 6000+ pages..."
CASA LORE AND THE MYTH OF REFORM
At last count there were well over 10,000 pages of Australian aviation regulations, written by lawyers, for Lawyers, in the legalise language.
Lots of people from industry complained that the rules were indecipherable and inordinately complex.
CAsA has now embarked on a program to explain their rules in plain English so the people who don't speak legalise can understand them.
Which sort of begs the question, why were they not written in plain English in the first place?
CAsA maintains it's because of our Westminster system of government. Yet the Kiwi's managed it and I thought they had a very similar system as ours.
Seems like we took the best of British bureaucracy and refined it into a unique Australian art form.
It Cost almost half a billion dollars to write the rules they have enacted so far with more to follow, a lot more.
Are they going to expend a further half a billion dollars to explain Australian regulations so those that have to comply with them can understand them?
The sheer volume of the regulations makes it impossible to be in complete compliance. To comply you really need to understand the meaning and intent of the law, laws which are very opaque and ambiguous.
This means that at all times somewhere in Australia someone is unknowingly becoming a criminal because CAsA moved aviation law into the criminal code, one of the very few aviation regulators in the real world who have done so.
CAsA has morphed itself into an enforcement agency rather than a service provider and is currently employing a large number of enforcement officers, ex policemen and ex spooks to catch non-compliers. A very vexatious issue in the industry as the same entity that writes the law, enforces the law, an anathema to natural justice.
CAsA have a rather embarrassing record on the rare occasions they have dragged perceived miscreants before an actual real court. In an attempt to circumvent that, they reversed the tried and proven British convention of innocence until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt, to one of Strict Liability where your guilty until you prove yourself innocent.
Notwithstanding, courts can be a pain for CAsA. Rules of evidence apply, even though CAsA is a far from model litigant. With the public purse to draw on, and employing very expensive legal teams they can still quit often lose the argument.
When all else fails or seems likely to fail, they tend to use what they call “Administrative Action”.
Administrative Action is where the hierarchy of CAsA, the so called “Iron Ring” decide, independent of any scrutiny from a higher Authority, to suspend or cancel approvals, certificates or licences issued by them under the guise of an imminent risk to safety. Even the threat of this action has the affect of grounding an operation thus denying its revenue flow.
Aviation is an inordinately expensive industry to be involved in, cash flow is its lifeblood, very few in the industry can afford to remain grounded for very long.
CAsA can and do obfuscate, ignore and delay until their target becomes insolvent.
Access to real courts for small to medium operators is out of the question. Time is their enemy and legal costs.
They have the option of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, however evidential rules of a real court don’t apply there. Opinions, rumour and innuendo can be brought to bear with impunity.
A model litigant CAsA is not, even up to committing perjury, but even then they can often lose the argument. Generally though their victim goes broke before a case is even heard.
The huge volumes of regulations requires operators to produce massive volumes of company regulations to explain in plain English how their company and their employee's will comply with thousands of regulations written in a virtual foreign language.
Unfortunately many CAsA officers are not lawyers either and do not understand the legalise language. Their interpretation of the meaning of the law, even amongst themselves is variable and may not be the same interpretation as the industry
For this reason CAsA produces "Policies". Policies are used to explain in plain English what CAsA management considers the law to mean for selective regulations.
Unfortunately policies may not necessarily say what the law means.
The only way to determine exactly what the law means is by testing it in a court.
A court is a place where a panel of experts in the legalise language, called judges, determine what a law says in plain english.
Aviation is very complex and highly technical industry and though the panel of experts in the legalise language may determine what the law says, it needs other people to argue what the law actually means. These people are called lawyers.
Lawyers are people who have an understanding of legalise, but must be briefed by experts who understand technical matters.
Unfortunately not too many people in CAsA have a great understanding of technical matters, the real expertise lies with the industry, which may be a reason why they don't do so well in courts.
Unfortunately Lawyers cost a lot of money and not too many aviation operators can afford them, having spent all their money on proving to the regulator that they are at least capable of complying with the regulations that they don't understand or which defy logic. Also they have to employ a lot of unproductive people who's job it is to continually attempt to unravel what the regulations mean, amend the companies regulations in accordance with the constantly varying opinions of the ever changing parade of CAsA enforcement officers. Even then, after agreement is reached between CAsA officers and their industry counterparts that compliance is achieved, CAsA management, at any time, may countermand that, bringing an operation to a stop.
That is the sovereign risk facing anyone invested or contemplating investment in Aviation.
When regulations have a detrimental affect on an operator or unintended consequences become apparent, CAsA may issue exemptions to the law as opposed to amending the law. An expensive exercise and in reality only open to large operators, and the flawed law remains in force. ( think reg 206)
An exemption may be issued largely because big operators quite often have considerable political affiliations, which they might use to severely embarrass CAsA. Also CAsA dread being dragged before a panel of legalise language experts where it could become apparent that their regulations are in fact gobbledygook, which would really be extremely embarrassing.
Some would say the above is a product of my warped imagination. I'm prepared to accept that.
CAsA however will never admit their warped attempts at regulation are in any way gobbledygook nor fit for purpose, nor that they are morally corrupt.
That their complex amateur regulations have unnecessarily destroyed many viable businesses, stifled investment and thrown a lot of people onto the Dole queue, as well as costing the Australian taxpayer a lot of unnecessary wasteful expense.
CASR Part 61 relating to flight crew standards and its attendant Manual of Standards are a classic example of exactly why Australia has become a bit of an international joke. CAsA requires thousands of pages to enunciate what the Americans and New Zealand can do in less than a hundred and still achieve better safety outcomes than us.
CAsA maintain they regulate for safety, which must allegedly be their only consideration. That’s a noble ambition, but why does it take CAsA tens of thousands of pages of indecipherable gobbledygook, which heaps enormous compliance costs and complexity on industry, to achieve a safety record no better than the US or NZ with less than a thousand pages in total?
There has been much talk about high airfares in regional Australia.
When one compares our ticket price against the US for a comparable journey one could ponder how do they manage to do it so cheaply?
What I have never heard from any inquiry is what percentage the cost of compliance adds to a ticket price in Australia.
Last edited by thorn bird; 16th Jun 2019 at 05:24.
Thread Starter
Thanks for the replies. I did notice the use of “Strict Liability” throughout Part 61.
Having worked overseas, I’ve seen it done as a “service” mentality rather than an enforcement mentality. Regulators with User Friendly documents that are relatively short and speak in plain language, leaving no areas of ambiguity. Definitions that define!
Having worked overseas, I’ve seen it done as a “service” mentality rather than an enforcement mentality. Regulators with User Friendly documents that are relatively short and speak in plain language, leaving no areas of ambiguity. Definitions that define!
Last edited by kellykelpie; 15th Jun 2019 at 22:55.
Totally agree, FAA documents are like novels. Our long lost brothers over the ditch to the East of Tasmania also do an excellent job of drafting good easy to understand regs.
thorn bird - really well written - I couldn't agree more...
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here's an example of just how screwed up our reg's are.
91.060 Responsibility and authority of pilot in command
Australia – 351 words
(1) The operator of an aircraft must ensure that the following information is available to the pilot in command of the aircraft to enable the pilot in command to comply with subregulation (5):
(a) the aircraft flight manual instructions for the aircraft;
(b) the airworthiness conditions (if any) for the aircraft;
(c) if the operator is required by these Regulations to have an operations manual — the operations manual;
(d) if the operator is required by these Regulations to have a dangerous goods manual — the dangerous goods manual.
Penalty: 50 penalty units.
(2) The pilot in command of an aircraft is responsible for the safety of the occupants of the aircraft, and any cargo on board, from the time the aircraft’s doors are closed before take-off until the time its doors are opened after landing.
(3) The pilot in command of an aircraft is responsible for the start, continuation, diversion (if any) and end of a flight by the aircraft, and for the operation and safety of the aircraft, from the moment the aircraft is ready to move until the moment it comes to rest at the end of the flight and its engine or engines are shut down.
(4) The pilot in command of an aircraft has final authority over:
(a) the aircraft while he or she is in command of it; and
(b) the maintenance of discipline by all persons on board the aircraft.
(5) The pilot in command of an aircraft must discharge his or her responsibilities under subregulations (2) and (3) in compliance with the following:
(a) the aircraft flight manual instructions for the aircraft;
(b) the airworthiness conditions (if any) for the aircraft;
(c) the operations manual (if any) as it applies to the pilot in command;
(d) the dangerous goods manual (if any) as it applies to the pilot in command.
Penalty: 50 penalty units.
Note These Regulations also contain other requirements and offences that apply to the pilot in command of an aircraft.
(6) An offence against subregulation (1) or (5) is an offence of strict liability.
USA - 94 words
(a) The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft.
(b) In an in-flight emergency requiring immediate action, the pilot in command may deviate from any rule of this part to the extent required to meet that emergency.
(c) Each pilot in command who deviates from a rule under paragraph (b) of this section shall, upon the request of the Administrator, send a written report of that deviation to the Administrator.
New Zealand - 96 words
91.203 Authority of the pilot-in-command
Each pilot-in-command of an aircraft shall give any commands necessary for the safety of the aircraft and of persons and property carried on the aircraft, including disembarking or refusing the carriage of:
(1) any person who appears to be under the influence of alcohol or any drug where, in the opinion of the pilot-in-command, their carriage is likely to endanger the aircraft or its occupants; and
(2) any person, or any part of the cargo, which, in the opinion of the pilot-in-command, is likely to endanger the aircraft or its occupants.
Author's note
The Australian version, with exactly the same heading as the FAA uses, and similar to the NZ version, doesn’t even address the subject matter in the heading. It devotes the first 91 words (highlighted in blue typeface) to detailing some of the responsibilities of the operator – not the pilot in command. It then goes on to detail some (but not all) of the documents which CASA requires to be made available to the pilot in command during flight. These items are generally referred to as "shelfware"; a GA pilot’s description of in-flight documents that have no particular usefulness in flight but whose carriage is mandatory. Their principal purposes appear to be increasing the aircraft's operating empty weight, cluttering the cockpit floor and its limited storage spaces, and obstructing escape routes in an emergency while also adding fuel to any resulting fire. Pilots are also warned that because of a common CASA practice of specifying the content and wording of operations manuals, the aircraft flight manual doesn't always agree with the operations manual, and the AFM should be considered the overriding authority where there is a discrepancy. The preferred time to debate this is not when one is flying an aircraft.
The allocation of 50 penalty points for not having this library aboard is confusing as to who is committing the crime and who is incurring the penalty, because the heading of the paragraph conflicts with the duties attributed to the operator rather than those of the pilot.
The Aussie version then goes on to detail a few (but again far from all) of the many responsibilities of a pilot in command, by referring him (or her of course) to the shelfware that has already been listed once.
From this example it is clear that far from putting the "finishing touches" on Part 91, the serious work of developing intelligible and effective legislation hasn't even started yet.
The US version says in 23 words, considerably more than CASR 91.060 says in its entirety, as well as adding a paragraph that intelligently permits pilots to deviate from the rules as necessary in an emergency, and a requirement to report the event (but only) if requested to do so.
Like the USA, the NZ regulations empower the pilot in command to make necessary decisions, the only special reference being specific authority to deny boarding to drunks and druggers.
In real life literally hundreds of duties and responsibilities are rightfully assigned to any pilot in command, and they are spelt out in the appropriate sections of any competently-written rule set. They are and should not be used as padding to project a false impression of regulatory diligence.
The new Australian regulations are rich in similar examples of amateurish regulatory framing
91.060 Responsibility and authority of pilot in command
Australia – 351 words
(1) The operator of an aircraft must ensure that the following information is available to the pilot in command of the aircraft to enable the pilot in command to comply with subregulation (5):
(a) the aircraft flight manual instructions for the aircraft;
(b) the airworthiness conditions (if any) for the aircraft;
(c) if the operator is required by these Regulations to have an operations manual — the operations manual;
(d) if the operator is required by these Regulations to have a dangerous goods manual — the dangerous goods manual.
Penalty: 50 penalty units.
(2) The pilot in command of an aircraft is responsible for the safety of the occupants of the aircraft, and any cargo on board, from the time the aircraft’s doors are closed before take-off until the time its doors are opened after landing.
(3) The pilot in command of an aircraft is responsible for the start, continuation, diversion (if any) and end of a flight by the aircraft, and for the operation and safety of the aircraft, from the moment the aircraft is ready to move until the moment it comes to rest at the end of the flight and its engine or engines are shut down.
(4) The pilot in command of an aircraft has final authority over:
(a) the aircraft while he or she is in command of it; and
(b) the maintenance of discipline by all persons on board the aircraft.
(5) The pilot in command of an aircraft must discharge his or her responsibilities under subregulations (2) and (3) in compliance with the following:
(a) the aircraft flight manual instructions for the aircraft;
(b) the airworthiness conditions (if any) for the aircraft;
(c) the operations manual (if any) as it applies to the pilot in command;
(d) the dangerous goods manual (if any) as it applies to the pilot in command.
Penalty: 50 penalty units.
Note These Regulations also contain other requirements and offences that apply to the pilot in command of an aircraft.
(6) An offence against subregulation (1) or (5) is an offence of strict liability.
USA - 94 words
(a) The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft.
(b) In an in-flight emergency requiring immediate action, the pilot in command may deviate from any rule of this part to the extent required to meet that emergency.
(c) Each pilot in command who deviates from a rule under paragraph (b) of this section shall, upon the request of the Administrator, send a written report of that deviation to the Administrator.
New Zealand - 96 words
91.203 Authority of the pilot-in-command
Each pilot-in-command of an aircraft shall give any commands necessary for the safety of the aircraft and of persons and property carried on the aircraft, including disembarking or refusing the carriage of:
(1) any person who appears to be under the influence of alcohol or any drug where, in the opinion of the pilot-in-command, their carriage is likely to endanger the aircraft or its occupants; and
(2) any person, or any part of the cargo, which, in the opinion of the pilot-in-command, is likely to endanger the aircraft or its occupants.
Author's note
The Australian version, with exactly the same heading as the FAA uses, and similar to the NZ version, doesn’t even address the subject matter in the heading. It devotes the first 91 words (highlighted in blue typeface) to detailing some of the responsibilities of the operator – not the pilot in command. It then goes on to detail some (but not all) of the documents which CASA requires to be made available to the pilot in command during flight. These items are generally referred to as "shelfware"; a GA pilot’s description of in-flight documents that have no particular usefulness in flight but whose carriage is mandatory. Their principal purposes appear to be increasing the aircraft's operating empty weight, cluttering the cockpit floor and its limited storage spaces, and obstructing escape routes in an emergency while also adding fuel to any resulting fire. Pilots are also warned that because of a common CASA practice of specifying the content and wording of operations manuals, the aircraft flight manual doesn't always agree with the operations manual, and the AFM should be considered the overriding authority where there is a discrepancy. The preferred time to debate this is not when one is flying an aircraft.
The allocation of 50 penalty points for not having this library aboard is confusing as to who is committing the crime and who is incurring the penalty, because the heading of the paragraph conflicts with the duties attributed to the operator rather than those of the pilot.
The Aussie version then goes on to detail a few (but again far from all) of the many responsibilities of a pilot in command, by referring him (or her of course) to the shelfware that has already been listed once.
From this example it is clear that far from putting the "finishing touches" on Part 91, the serious work of developing intelligible and effective legislation hasn't even started yet.
The US version says in 23 words, considerably more than CASR 91.060 says in its entirety, as well as adding a paragraph that intelligently permits pilots to deviate from the rules as necessary in an emergency, and a requirement to report the event (but only) if requested to do so.
Like the USA, the NZ regulations empower the pilot in command to make necessary decisions, the only special reference being specific authority to deny boarding to drunks and druggers.
In real life literally hundreds of duties and responsibilities are rightfully assigned to any pilot in command, and they are spelt out in the appropriate sections of any competently-written rule set. They are and should not be used as padding to project a false impression of regulatory diligence.
The new Australian regulations are rich in similar examples of amateurish regulatory framing
I wonder if the time might be right for some Ministerial action? The Morrison Government is allegedly concerned to reduce business red tape.
I will investigate if there might be some interest in CASA as a case in point when I get back from holidays. I am not hopeful however; CASA seems to have developed defences that remind me of our local Echidnas.
I will investigate if there might be some interest in CASA as a case in point when I get back from holidays. I am not hopeful however; CASA seems to have developed defences that remind me of our local Echidnas.
Folks,
As I have quoted time and again, the words of a former very senior CASA lawyer:
"Aviation law is for lawyers and judges, for the safe conviction of pilots and engineers".
Thus, the Civil Aviation Act 1988 and Regulations in Australia are intended to fulfill an entirely different purpose than the US/NZ/CA/UK legislation, ICAO Annex's/Docs., which are for the use of and by aircrew and maintenance perX., and others in the business.
Rather straightforward, really!!
Tootle pip!!
PS: That is a direct quote in my presence, not some second hand urban myth.
As I have quoted time and again, the words of a former very senior CASA lawyer:
"Aviation law is for lawyers and judges, for the safe conviction of pilots and engineers".
Thus, the Civil Aviation Act 1988 and Regulations in Australia are intended to fulfill an entirely different purpose than the US/NZ/CA/UK legislation, ICAO Annex's/Docs., which are for the use of and by aircrew and maintenance perX., and others in the business.
Rather straightforward, really!!
Tootle pip!!
PS: That is a direct quote in my presence, not some second hand urban myth.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Fliegensville, Gold Coast Australia
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
developed defences that remind me of our local Echidnas.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: CASEY STATION
Posts: 191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Part 61 Instrument Rating lists IAP2D and IAP3D. According to Part 61 IAP2D only allows the holder to perform 2D approaches where training and testing has occurred (I.e NDB, VOR, DGA, RNAV/GNSS). What additional documents does an individual need to provide when asked to verify 2D approach qualifications?
The confusing, convoluted and contradictory regs are designed to make it easier for the user to get tripped up and the CAsA coppers to knock you off. "Safety is what we bash into you with (crippling) Penalty Points"...and for any minor infraction. Even tho the Compliance and Enforcement Manual says that for something 'minor'..if you think you can do it and they dont..you talk about it. Yeah ? Just read the Penalty Notice , is all you'll get.
A recent quote that applies from an article in The Oz from a Social Psychologist....
" Its hard to live around people who are constantly looking for infractions and someone to punish."
With CAsA its faaarking impossible.
And the CAsA Coppers are very good at verballing, BS and twisting the truth to suit their aims. Beware.!
Sunny ...Can ScoMo be the Saving Grace or an Angel of Mercy for Aviation in Oz.? Trust you have/had a good holiday and let us know any result.
A recent quote that applies from an article in The Oz from a Social Psychologist....
" Its hard to live around people who are constantly looking for infractions and someone to punish."
With CAsA its faaarking impossible.
And the CAsA Coppers are very good at verballing, BS and twisting the truth to suit their aims. Beware.!
Sunny ...Can ScoMo be the Saving Grace or an Angel of Mercy for Aviation in Oz.? Trust you have/had a good holiday and let us know any result.
Part 61 Instrument Rating lists IAP2D and IAP3D. According to Part 61 IAP2D only allows the holder to perform 2D approaches where training and testing has occurred (I.e NDB, VOR, DGA, RNAV/GNSS). What additional documents does an individual need to provide when asked to verify 2D approach qualifications?
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: CASEY STATION
Posts: 191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ersa
Thankyou. Reason for the question was I last flew in Aus on a CAR part 5 licence. When you say logbook entry do you mean logbook endorsement used for rating renewals in the Part 5 system ? as a pilot entry could just be evidence of an illegal approach ?
My question is when someone asks for “evidence” of being qualified for all 2D approaches what does a pilot show these days?
Thankyou. Reason for the question was I last flew in Aus on a CAR part 5 licence. When you say logbook entry do you mean logbook endorsement used for rating renewals in the Part 5 system ? as a pilot entry could just be evidence of an illegal approach ?
My question is when someone asks for “evidence” of being qualified for all 2D approaches what does a pilot show these days?
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm at the end of my commercial flying career, it's been a hell of a ride but I'd hate to be in the thick of it these days, it's an ugly industry now, full of confusion, uncertainty & it's very insecure!
CASA has made an absolute balls up of the game at the GA level & a grubby mess at the Airline level!
I wish all those that are starting out the best of luck, you'll need it for sure !:-(
CASA has made an absolute balls up of the game at the GA level & a grubby mess at the Airline level!
I wish all those that are starting out the best of luck, you'll need it for sure !:-(