|
Consultation Draft Part 91.
CASA have released a consultation draft for part 91.
Download it here and have at it: Civil Aviation Safety Authority - CASR Part 91 - General operating and flight rules |
is it just me.....? it seems casa thinks we're all criminals and that all breaches of the regs are deliberate & judging by the manner in which they've written the proposed part 91 they're out to get us....
example 91.145 Documents to be carried (1) The pilot in command of an aircraft commits an offence if: (a) he or she commences a flight................... NZ regs written in a slightly less threatening manner 91.111 Documents to be carried Except as provided in Parts 103, 104, and 106, a person must not operate an aircraft unless the following documents are carried in the aircraft: (1) except if rul................................. |
First stumbling block - strict liability offence not to follow AFM. Presumably the Crew of the Qantas A380 that didn't follow the QRH are automatically guilty.
91.060: (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; 91.080 to 91.085 gives me the right as pilot to carry and discharge a loaded firearm from an aircraft? 91.095 Portable electronic devices - unless CASA issues a written dispensation in writing, presumably my hand held ICOM VHF may not be used in flight. Anything with a Bluetooth or WiFi conection is also out since these are transmitting devices. 91.145 says it is an offence not to carry your licence and medical, or reasonable copies thereof. 91.150 Says you have to carry the manual for your Dynon Skyview if fitted. 91.150 (4) says that screwing up your computer because you don't understand what you are doing is an offence. 91.210 says that failing to check that a fuel tank cap is fastened, and it falls of, then you are guilty of an offence. In other words any act of omission in checks is an offence. However if you think it wasn't necessary and can convince a jury that belief was "reasonable" then that is a defence. 91.341 seaplane on water must comply with "International regulations for the prevention of collision at sea" not just "International regulations". Furthermore, they had better comply with the Harbour Masters regulations as well or there will be trouble. 91.510 means it is an offence to land with less than fixed reserves of fuel as far as I can tell. This reminds me of the storemans lament: "But if I give you the spare, then there won't be one in the store." There needs to be a defence for this charge. 91.567 - you are required to tell your passengers whether you are insured or not and if the aircraft is experimental. 91.775 says that if you have a red beacon then it will cost you 25 penalty units if you fail to turn it on after starting your engine. It's then 50 penalty units if you fail to turn your strobes on before moving. 91.920 Computerised navigation system databases This appears to be a licence for Jeppesen to print money. The use of in car navigators, Iphones, Ipads or laptops with Ozi explorer is now verboten. |
Basically, all Aviation is a criminal offence except under a very tight set of exemptions. What a system.
|
Its OK Sunny -
Persuant to 91.095 (2) (a) (i) My hearing aid is ok to 'operate'......So, I'll be able to HEAR the Cabin brief....What??... (ii) My pacemaker is ok to 'operate' ....(Is there an 'off' switch..??) (v) My electronic watch is ok to 'operate'....phew - I'm glad of that. No 'off' switch on me watch either..... So, at least, someone on board will be able to accurately note the time of my demise if/when the ole pacemaker decides to conform with the 'spirit of the law', and the last words I may hear could well be 'tea or coffee sir???'...... Its Time........for a change of gummint.....and a 'sensible' approach to ALL things 'aviation'.....IMHO...!! Cheers:ok: |
It does appear though that we no longer get hypoxic at 10,001 feet but that we can survive up to 12,500 and even up to 14,000 for 30 minutes (warning - cursory glance only)
I too am bemused that most of it seems to imply a strict liability offense unless... I.e. You are guilty of crime unless you do, or prove, otherwise. Another small point is that it is a strict offense to overfly a public gathering, with no altitude mentioned, should be interesting to watch the overflights of cities having to divert to avoid the overflight of the opening of an envelope /sarc off |
We all need to make comments via official response. If we ignore it it'll happen to us.
|
Christ who writes this ****? :rolleyes:
Have they ever read legislation pertaining to ANY other human endeavour? :uhoh: |
Exactly HL... who does.??
Anybody make any sense out of 91.220 (1) (a) and (b) Is there a third way ????? 91.120 re flying over public gatherings ... oops, there goes the VP day poppy drops, and the kiddies lolly drops. |
Christ who writes this ****? Or if you want a more enlightened precis ask the resident Doctor of magical New Guinea spells, rattles, payback and tribal adornments at CASA Office of Legal Counsel. |
Yup we're dealing with utter MORONS with no redeeming features whatsoever.
(2) The pilot in command of a multi-engined aircraft commits an offence if: (a) during a flight of the aircraft, an engine fails or its rotation is stopped; and (b) the pilot does not: (i) fly the aircraft to the nearest aerodrome that is suitable for landing the aircraft; and (ii) land the aircraft at the aerodrome. Penalty: 50 penalty units. (3) It is a defence to a prosecution for an offence against subregulation (2) that: (a) the pilot flew the aircraft to, and landed at, an aerodrome (the alternative aerodrome) that was not the nearest aerodrome suitable for landing the aircraft; and (b) the pilot believed, having considered the matters mentioned in subregulation (4), that it was safe to fly the aircraft to, and land the aircraft at, the alternative aerodrome; and (c) the belief was reasonable in the circumstances. (4) For paragraph (3) (b), the matters are the following: (a) the nature of the malfunction that caused the engine to fail, or caused its rotation to stop, and the possible mechanical difficulties that may occur if the flight continued beyond the nearest aerodrome suitable for landing the aircraft; (b) the availability of the inoperative engine to be used; (c) the altitude of the aircraft and whether it is able to maintain a safe altitude; (d) the weight of the aircraft and the amount of usable fuel remaining; MM07046A-110321A.doc, 22/03/2011, 3:59 PM Schedule 1 Amendments of Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 (e) the additional distance to be flown to the alternative aerodrome, taking into account the aircraft’s performance availability should another engine fail; (f) the relative characteristics of the nearest aerodrome and the alternative aerodrome; (g) weather conditions on the route to the nearest aerodrome and the alternative aerodrome and at other possible landing places; (h) air traffic congestion on the route to, and at, the nearest aerodrome and the alternative aerodrome; (i) the pilot’s familiarity with the nearest aerodrome and the alternative aerodrome; (j) the type of terrain to be flown over on the route to the nearest aerodrome and the alternative aerodrome; (k) whether the flight to the nearest aerodrome or the alternative aerodrome will be over water; (l) whether the flight to the nearest aerodrome or the alternative aerodrome will be over a populous area. (5) An offence against subregulation (1) or (2) is an offence of strict liability. Note For the defence of sudden or extraordinary emergency, see section 10.3 of the Criminal Code. You bozos better either rescind all ETOPS approvals or, better yet, stick to **** you understand. Its not immediately apparent what that might be - its certainly not flying aircraft. |
I like this one the best; 91.185 Dropping objects from aircraft
The pilot in command of an aircraft commits an offence if: (a) the pilot drops a thing, or permits a thing to be dropped, from the aircraft during a flight of the aircraft; Thing... :p |
everyone knows what 'thing' is...a detached human hand....
|
Does "thing" include turbine discs, or is that not dropped when it is propelled out at mach 1+
:} |
91.065 Directions and other actions by pilot in command
(1) The pilot in command of an aircraft for a flight may do 1 or more of the things mentioned in subregulation (2), if he or she believes it is necessary to do so for the safety of: (a) the aircraft; or (b) a person on board the aircraft; or (c) a person or property on the ground or water. (2) The things are the following: (a) direct a person to do, or not to do, or stop doing, something, or to limit the doing of something, while the person is on board the aircraft; The bolded line certainly made me giggle :D |
Dropping a 'thing'.....
I guessssss there goes the 'flour bag' bombing practice, and even the odd toilet roll for the 'streamer cutting' comp. ??? |
The fuel thing now means that at a ramp check CASA can inspect your remaining fuel and if you don't have enough for at least Thirty minutes they can prosecute.
|
Farrrreeeakk.
You have to really read every word carefully. I kept rereading 91.510 2(c) in disbelief until I finally noticed the keyword and in the preceeding 2(b). Actually, that fuel-planning section raises an interesting issue if you're in the GAFA (no alternative aerodrome) and the headwinds are worst than planned-for hence you end-up arriving at your destination with less than the fixed-reserve. As Sunfish said earlier, this section is too blunt an instrument. |
Australian Pruners,
Fail to read and lodge comment on this draft proposal at your peril. This is possibly one of the most aggressive and offensive draft rule proposals ever presented to Australian Aviation. Almost every paragraph starts with "A Pilot Commits an Offence If" or "An Offence is committed". There is no need for this style of attack on pilots and aviation. One can easily assess the mind set of the authors, " We're out to get you !" no matter what. Read the style of the proposed Part 91, then compare it with the style of the USA FARs, Part 91, or read the NZ Part 91, Part 91 - General Operating and Flight Rules Those countries dont see the pilot community as criminals to be hunted down, same rules, different style, different assumptions. There is no problem with the rules, but the aggressive stance and style of the proposed Australian Part 91 is beyond belief. Write to the Part 91 website comment address, and ask that the style be changed. Perhaps we should have rules for CASA officers in a similar vein? "A CASA Officer Commits an Offence if" a deliberate falsehood is perpetrated. "A CASA Officer Commits an Offence if" deliberate commercial harm is done to an organisation or pilot. etc etc. Make the unaccountable accountable, they have played their hand with Part 91, is this to be the style of the remaining parts? |
Partly what CC said...
You bozos better ... stick to **** you understand. Its not immediately apparent what that might be - its certainly not flying aircraft. (2) A crew member of an aircraft commits an offence if: (a) he or she provides an alcoholic beverage to a passenger on board the aircraft; and (b) at the time of the provision, the passenger is affected by alcohol or another psychoactive substance to an extent that his or her behaviour presents a hazard to the aircraft or to a person on board the aircraft. Some major problems here I think. Firstly, a crew member...is this a cabin crew member, as per 91.455(1)(b), or any crew member? :confused: Secondly, where is the objective criteria to define what behaviour presents such a hazard, what exactly is meant by by psychoactive substance, because those substances aren't defined in the proposed consultation draft (ie., illicit or non-illicit psychoactive substances)? :confused: Now look at 91.460: The operator, or a crew member, of an aircraft may prohibit a person from boarding the aircraft if there are reasonable grounds to believe that the person is affected by alcohol or a drug to an extent that may present a hazard to the aircraft or to a person on board the aircraft. In this instance crew member seems to include flight and cabin crew...fair enough. But now CASA refers to a person affected by alcohol or a drug. So, what happened to psychoactive substances here at 91.460?? :confused: For chrissakes CASA, after all this time you STILL managed to unnecessarily overcomplicate this CASR when it could simply have been a carbon copy of the NZ Part, and in the process made some monumental fcuk-ups in the process! I'd suggest the Director CASA pulls his head out of his @rse, reads and understands the posts on this thread, then gets busy and organises a big arse-kicking party for the clowns who drafted this nonsense. Idiocy like the CASR proposed should be a strict liability offence I reckon. :mad: |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 22:22. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.