Australian Aviation Regulations.
 

I spent the weekend learning about Australian Civil Aviation Regulations and how they apply to maintenance.

My head hurts.

All I can say is; you poor guys who have to work with all this stuff for a living!


....and any mistake will result in your obtaining a criminal record.

Welcome to the club. The real problem over the past 20 odd years is that the system keeps changing the things ...

Going through Air Law at the moment. The worst part is Figuring out what the hell it is they're trying to say!

Rocket:

It's simple; everything is forbidden, however we will not prosecute you if you do the following.......

(a)

and

(b)

or (c)

haha so true!

Is that (a and b) or c, or a and (b or c)?

Glad to see that I am not the only one that is having trouble, has had trouble, or may have had trouble understanding what they, them or CASA is, has or will be trying to say.

(1) This thread is the ultimate 'inside joke', nothing to someone who has had no interaction with the regs but absolutely hilarious to anyone who has done air law:}
By the way, you must agree with my statement.

Penalty: 50 Penalty Units

(2) An offence against subregulation (1) is an offence of strict liability. Note For strict liability, see section 6.1 of the Criminal Code.:E

There was an email floating around that made fun of pilots understanding the regs. If anyone has it, has had or is able to obtain it. Please post here

1.3.4.b

"No pilot or pilots, or person or persons acting on the direction or suggestion or supervision of the pilot or pilots may try, or attempt to try or make attempt to try to comprehend or understand any or all, in whole or in part of the herein mentioned CAO's, except as authorized by the minister or an agent appointed by, or inspected by the minister."

1.3.4c

"If the pilot, or group of associate pilots become aware of, or realizes, or detects, or discovers, or finds that he, or she, or they, are or have been begining to understand the CAO's, they must immediately, within three days notify ,in writing, the minister."

bbbbbzbzbzbbzzzjokers!!!bbbbzbzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Most publications from CASA / Airservices are directed at our Private / Single Engine drivers - very handy :sad:- anyhoo - (no offense to them, they are generally very good)

However anything beyond that is non-existent (for some reason) or over complicated - written by ................. 'different' pilot types. :eek:

While we're on the subject...
 

...of strangulation "regulation", dont forget to read Part 91 Crimes that Pilots Can/Will/Do Commit.

If you can wade thru the 270 pages of #!!@**!!#.. and some are incomprehensible... DO lodge your critique to CASA.
[email protected]

They will have a good laugh, prior top ignoring yr comments... and the industry will get hit with all this sh1t whether we need it, want it like it or not.

Will it be ever thus...:mad:

Sunfish;

The regulations are out of date by some 23 years. CASA operate on "instruments".

Ask Senator Heffernan.

operating on instruments?
so they ARE flying blind.

Have been for years.

Rocket,

There was an email floating around that made fun of pilots understanding the regs.

Fact is no one understands the Regs as they stand today, pilots blunder through because they want to be compliant and really don't want to hurt themselves or others.

CASA use the "system" to maintain the status quo because it suits them to be in a constant state of flux, easier to force those they get a set against out of the "Industry" and easier to maintain their game on the side issuing exemptions.

Lawyers have no desire to fix the situation, for some of them it is a "Cash Cow" with no sight of an end, 23 years in the making under multiple CASA Administrators.

CASA compared to EASA/JAA
 

Hi there,
does anyone know how our system stacks up to against the EASA/JAA? i presume its similar in terms of madness and dificulty level??

EASA successfully integrated all member states rgulations into one set of regs! I find it hard to understand why CASA is struggling. There are FAA and EASA out their for guidance. Switzerland not an EU state or member of EASA has their own legislation which I understand in many cases just refer to the EASA part as the current rules?

Sunfish. If you are thinking about getting an engineers license, take a look at the latest issue of the Aviation Advertiser. Seems that you don't need to go down that route of studying for all those subjects, and you apparently won't need to bother with that annoying time-wasting practical experience. It seems that all you will need is to have a private pilot's license and then ask CASA for a Maintenance Authority. There's a guy in the Advertiser article who owns and flies a twin-engine helicopter and was given a Maintenance Authority to maintain his helicopter, airframe, engines and apparently E.I.R as well.

CASA realised their mistake when the guy tried for a renew of the Authority and refused to re-issue it. It only took the guy a quick trip to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (or something like that) and Hey Presto! we no longer need to be LAME to carry out and certify aircraft maintenance.

My neighbour (who dosen't fly but can recognise an aircraft) is thinking of trying CASA for a similar sort of approval so that he can buy a Cessna 402 and go flying. Like the guy in the Advertiser article, he doesn't have any "legal" flight experience but, there is now a precedent.

WTF is happening within CASA for this kind of BS to be happening?

Admittedly, it was back in the mid 80s when the following occurred but I suspect it is still relevant.

I had just gained my CPL and an friend whom was and still is a practising Lawyer had obtained a set of the then ANOs and ANRs for some reason now forgotten.

He later told me that even as a Lawyer he found some regulations were indeed so difficult that you would have to be a Lawyer to understand them and that even as a Lawyer there were some that he had difficulty in understanding/interpreting them.:uhoh:

He concluded the discussion with the comment that there were more than a few direct contradictions amongst all the legalese.

'' So, a circumstance could arise where there could be a king-sized 'Lawyers picnic' as a consequence?'' I asked.

''Got it in one'' was his reply.

I wonder how much has changed since then.*




*A rhetorical question actually