CAR 232...an Ausfly experience coming to you?
 

From Vocasupport:

Further damage to aviation accrues from CAR 232

A full 85 penalty points can accrue if an “operator” is ramp checked and has not:

(a) the flight check system has been approved by CASA;

(b) if CASA has required the system to be revised–the system has been revised in the manner specified by CASA.

85 penalty points at AUD$180 per point, so the maximum penalty is $15,300, making the administrative penalty $3060 – should improve the relationships with the aviation industry with #casa.

In the words of a long-time aviation member, there are serious issues here for all aviation participants:

“……By and large, what CASA micro-management will accept is a threat to air safety, the “approved systems” are so complex and extensive, and generally so contrary to manufacturer’s Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) recommended procedures, that they seriously impinge on the safe operation of the aircraft.

Note: That what is in the AFM, despite CAR 138, is not acceptable to at least two CASA regional offices.

Well, some bright spark in CASA has decided that, in the new Skidmore spirit of cooperation with industry, that CAR 232 should be rigorously enforced, after all it is “the law”, every aircraft has a “registered operator”, and CAR 232 rates a stand-alone mention in the CASA Ramp Check checklist, so it must be really, really important…..”



CIVIL AVIATION REGULATIONS 1988 – REG 232

Flight check system

(1) The operator of an aircraft shall establish a flight check system for each type of aircraft, setting out the procedure to be followed by the pilot in command and other flight crew members prior to and on take-off, in flight, on landing and in emergency situations.

Penalty: 25 penalty units.

(2) A flight check system shall be subject to the prior approval of CASA, and CASA may at any time require the system to be revised in such manner as CASA specifies.

(3) The pilot in command must ensure that the check lists of the procedures are carried in the aircraft and are located where they will be available instantly to the crew member concerned.

Penalty: 10 penalty units.

(4) The pilot in command shall ensure that the flight check system is carried out in detail.

Penalty: 25 penalty units.

(5) The operator of an aircraft must not allow the aircraft to be flown if the following requirements have not been satisfied:

(a) the flight check system has been approved by CASA;

(b) if CASA has required the system to be revised–the system has been revised in the manner specified by CASA.

Penalty: 25 penalty units.

(6) An offence against subregulation (1), (3), (4) or (5) is an offence of strict liability.

Note: For strict liability , see section 6.1 of the Criminal Code

I'm building experimental and there is NO AFM! I have a draft AFM provided by the manufacturer of the airframe with no responsibility "as is", no hard performance numbers besides VNE, VMO and an AUW and CG range. To that must be added the engine and propeller operators manuals and a Skyview manual.

Emergency procedures are generic for a single engined aircraft and specific for the engine and propeller. There are Two or three wrinkles to be added though. Even Rotax procedures depend to some extent on the configuration of the airframe.

If any of this has to be submitted to CASA for their perusal and analysis at my expense I'll quit building right now.

Surely this is a joke or misinterpretation?

I have written to my federal Member, Sharman Stone about this and other regulatory disasters.

I also sent a copy to Sussan Ley, Health Minister, who flies her own C182 RG around her very large electorate and asked her if she would cop the fines.

My Auster has never had an AFM and operates on an exemption. I have a check list with my MR but it has never been authorised under 232 to my knowledge.

I wonder what the cost-recovery fee to approve will be. And I wonder how much it will cost to have an authorised and approved checklist prepared by a competent aero engineer?

Yes it's BS and the people doing ramp checks will probably be reined in with another exemption but the point is that it shouldn't happen!

Kaz

So we are no longer pilots, we are operators ???????

Clue, find out what CASA's definition of an "operator" is and all this will go away.

Doesn't matter what the definition of "operator" is for the purposes of CAR 232. Whatever it happens to be, CAR 232 still imposes obligations on pilots.

And if CARs 233 and 234 apply to all pilots including private pilots, CAR 232 does too.

That, presumably, explains why CASA's guidance on ramp checks says what it says about checklists.

Sunny,

Not sure if you are doing the Alphabet or telephone number rego option, but if its alphabet you will have a operation handbook or something like that put together, with check lists, the AP issues the CofA with that…. :ok:

Duck Pilot,
That's an easy one (you could, of course, look it up) every Australian VH- aircraft has a registered operator, perhaps unsurprisingly it is part of the aircraft registration, and the registered operator is responsible for the operation of the aircraft.
Many moons ago there was Exemption EX38/2004 to CAR 232, but this can no longer be found on the CASA web site (by me, anyway) so it is a reasonable assumption that it has ceased to exist, and I can find no replacement.
If, in fact, this is the case, CAR 232 applies to all operations, and at least two CASA offices think this is the case.
Hence efforts to "nip in the bid" any attempts by CASA recalcitrant to spoil Ausfly, as they did Natfly for RAOz.
Tootle pip!!

There are numerous exemptions from 232 on the Federal Register of Legislative Instruments, but these all appear to be issued to individual operators.

There might be a 'general' one for private operations, but I couldn't find it.

But exemptions shouldn't be necessary or given, other than in extraordinarily unusual circumstances.

"Beyond a point, complexity is fraud."

Cost of getting CAsA approval for a "check" system???
So far around $2000 dollars for a completely unsafe concoction that the FOI imagines even comes close to operational reality.

so, what the regs are saying, is you need to carry, and use the aircraft checklists.. seams fair. shizer, even my cheap italian homebuilt has a decent checklist in the AFM. which i always carry on board, and use. cant be that hard. :E

Engine failure after take off.

Let's see, page .... page ... it will be behind the Emergency Procedures tab somewhere ... page .... dead ultralight!

It's a very simple question: Is rote learning checklists a system that has been approved by CASA and obviates the requirement to carry paper/electronic checklists?

No, Ultralite, sadly that is NOT what it say, I suggest you read CAR 232 as it is written, not as you think it is written.

The problem lies in the fact that CASA requires far more than the AFM checklist (whether they should or not is another legal argument, despite CAR 138) as a "flight check system", of which such "checklists" as CASA dictates will be part, and flight check system has to be approved for each and every operator.

Thus, if for example, there of 10 owners of a C-172 on your airfield, and each is the registered operator of his/her C-172, that is 10 separate flight check system must be approved by CASA.

This is what CASA do to AOC operators all the time, and it is almost "standard" that, if there are, say, two Kingair 200, with two different registered operators, the two CASA approved "flight check systems" will be very different, depending on the FOI. About all you can guarantee is they will be quite different to the manufacturer's recommendations, ie: the AFM.

For some years there was an exemption ( great regulation, write a regulation, then exempt about 80% of Australian aircraft) for most single engine aircraft and some others, in private operation, but that seems to have lapsed, at least in the belief of two CASA regional offices.

It is lunacy.

Tootle pip!!

Ultralights:

No Ultralights, CAR232 says you need checklists approved by CASA no matter who the author is.

I think I'll work on the veggie garden, and not the aircraft, until this is cleared up because I'll be ^&%^ed if I am going to be toyed with like this! How can an issue like this surface as "new" after Twenty ******* years of regulation reform??????? What ******* planet is CASA on????

Seriously, CASA seems to be bent on destroying all forms of aviation other than airlines and the military.

no, CASA has already destroyed almost all forms of aviation in Australia, bar, Military and airline.

on a little side note, interesting to see in todays press that senator for the greens being questioned on her multi million dollar travel expenses claims, all spent on chartering aircraft to regional towns not serviced by airlines... funny that.


back to CAR232, i have not had the time to read them yet, but will soon, do these effect homebuilt, Ie, experimental aircraft?

Sunfish :cool: chill man, buy a bottle of cucumber gin on your way through Dubbo and relax, enjoy the airshow.

Section 7 of the AOC handbook has the exemptions.

Section 7.2 to be specific.

CASA EX38/2004

Is this the specific exemption?

If it is, suggest copying and laminating and placing in front of AFM.

Further to this and from the explanation section-

Seriously, why complicate the requirements...if an FOI pulls you up, point out the placards or the AFM and a copy of this exemption to make sure he/she/it understands that you are NOT a commercial OPERATOR nor RPT.

Oz,
Problem is, as far as can be determined so far, EX 38/2004 has been extinguished, it is no longer published on the Commonwealth Register of LIs. Although 38/2004 was not published with an expiry date, it seems to no longer legally exist, and, of course, the AOCM is only an advisory document.

Maybe 38/2004 was not exempt from the automatic sunset clauses of the Legislative Instrument Act 2003, although I can't see immediately why that would be.

We think this is what at least two CASA regional offices have realized, hence their newfound interest in going after private owners (operators) for non-compliance with CAR 232, which regulation is specifically mentioned in the newest Ramp Check checklist.

Ain't aviation in Australia wonderful??? So simple and straightforward, we are inundated with new people wanting to commit fun filled and fascinating flying.

Tootle pip!!

I still find it there; see on https://www.comlaw.gov.au/Browse/Res...s/Current/Ca/0

The sunset clause would keep it in place until 2020.

To prove this situation-

Do a google search of any exemption you can think of. This will go to the AusLi site as the first or second hit. Open the link and check the details in the box in the upper right corner.

For argument sake. EX05/09 This exemption has an expiry date of 2011. Look at the top right corner, it shows there the activity of the reg. Rescinded under the blanket instrument.

Methinks these FOIs are being too clever by half. Regretfully, how far do you have to go to prove these people do not know their job?

I'll keep at this for a bit longer to ensure my position.

EDIT to add...any exemption you open on the AusLi site will show on the left side of heading whether it is CURRENT, SUPERSCEDED or RESCINDED.

The only authoritative register is the Federal Register of Legislative Instruments. That ain't Austlii and it ain't the AOCM.

If you can't find the exemption on FRLI (or hidden somewhere in the regs), it isn't law.

The fact that there was a general exemption and reference in the AOCM to private operations shows that CASA considers 232 to apply generally. Why else would an exemption be required?

with regards to "Operator"

Duckpilot gave the clue, CAR 212 defines operator as the entity engaged in COMMERCIAL operations.

private owners engaged in private (non-commercial) operations are not the target of CAR 232.

relax and enjoy the show

Lead Balloon...It IS there on the site....Do you want it written in blood, signed by the Director himself?

Further to your point-
If there are FOIs running around with their own interpretations then best do something about it with the DAS at NRM. Copy of this thread, copy of exemption and any hearsay evidence that you may have of these two FOIs persecuting on their own interpretation of the law.

I hate unswarn officers who do not know their job...not as much as BS spreaders on this site!

"hence their newfound interest in going after private owners (operators) for non-compliance with CAR 232,"

Or could it be more about revenue raising?
I know of one operator who was charged 16 hours@$190 an hour for an FOI to check the manufacturer supplied, FAA approved QRH, exactly matched the Manufacturer supplied, FAA approved AFM.

The big problems occur when the procedure lists contained in the AFM built on 1970'ies philosophy and product liability are considered as checklists, leading to pages and pages of entirely dicretionary stuff like Air Conditioning.............AS REQUIRED,
without stating the obvious, if its bleeding hot turn it on, if it aint leave it off. This leads to forty fifty item taxi checklists with both pilots head in instead of head out which if anyone did a risk analysis it would perhaps indicate that this is not a real good idea as someone might happen to taxi into someone else, or worse enter a runway while an A380 is taking off because they are too busy checking stuff that has nothing to do with the safe operation of the aircraft.
In the end its all about liability, they really should take safety out of CAsA's title.

If in doubt...RING FLIGHT OPERATIONS and ask them...I just did, the exemption is current and in force. If the FOI in question ramps you on this...Name and ID.

Have a nice weekend, people. Bloody BS abounds...Leadsled, you should know better!

Mainframe

CAR 212 starts with the magic words "in this Division":

"In this Division, operator means an operator engaging in commercial operations."

CAR 212 is in Divison 2. "This Division" is Division 2.

CAR 232 is in Division 3.

OZ: Please post the FRLI link to the exemption to which you refer. Some FOI saying it is so does not make it so.

And don't forget:

- CASA's published guidance on ramp checks for "GA pilots" says that you will be expected to provide paper or electronic copies of checklists,

- the reference in the guidance is to CAR 232, and

- CAR 232 requires the checklists to have come from a CASA-approved system.

Already linked to the ComLaw site....The exact same site Flight Operations used to confirm this issue.

LB, There are GA commercial operations...Where does it say GA PVT must also comply?

Where does it say GA PVT don't have to?

You must understand where this confusion originated. It originated from CASA guidance and the mess that is the regulations. It did not originate from anyone on pprune.

My information is direct from the Melbourne office of Flight Operations. This BS needs to stop! Ring them yourself! Bookmark the ComLaw site, download the PDF into your phone and have a hard copy, if you can, placed in the front of your Flight Manual.

GA PVT under 5700KG is exempt from CAR232 under EX38/2004!

I don't have an operations manual or an AFM...perhaps that means I don't have to bother about it

:rolleyes:

Kaz

So hopefully, if that exemption is still in force, someone in CASA will amend the CASA guidance on ramp checks so as to not cause further confusion.

Let's hope that, if it is in force, it isn't inadvertantly revoked.

And if the policy of the exemption is a good idea, one wonders why it could not have been enshrined in the regulations by now, more than a decade later.

"Beyond a point, complexity is fraud."

The problem isn't so much whether the provisions of the CAR apply or whether there is an exemption, or who is defined as an operator, or even if there is an AFM to refer to; it's the source of the confusion.

Why is the CAR written in the negative instead of imposing a positive obligation? Why doesn't it use plain English? Why didn't it deal with the situation for aircraft under 5700 kg instead of another exemption of doubtful currency? What makes CASA a more learned authority than the worlds biggest manufacturer of GA SE aircraft or a small one for that matter? Why has all sense and reason flown out the window?

The answer is surely in the management, or lack thereof, commencing with successive Ministers and a long list of Directors whose experiences in the real world are limited or forgotten.

Write to your Members folks and keep telling them "no more!"

<first name.last [email protected]>

Kaz

Yep.

This issue is one example, out of many, that illustrates so vividly the pointless complexity of and confusion caused by the regulatory regime and the spectrum of learned helplessness across to outright rejection of the industry.

First there's the bunch of people who figure that CAR 232 doesn't apply to private ops. Ironically, they stumble into inadvertent compliance (actually, they inadvertently avoid non-compliance and criminality) because of an exemption that is over a decade old, if it is still in force. If it isn't in force, or is revoked, presumably this bunch of people will continue to operate safely, notwithstanding that they are in breach of CAR 232.

Then there's whoever drafted the guidance on ramp checks, who did not know about, or decided it wasn't worth mentioning, the existence of a general exemption from CAR 232, and instead stated categorically that GA pilots would be expected to provide evidence of written or electronic checklists, with a reference to CAR 232 and, by implication, all the requirements of CAR 232. (So what if people read CASA guidance as meaning what it says? That's their problem!) The alternative is that whoever drafted the guidance on ramp checks believes that the exemption is no longer in force.

But let's be thankful to our benign regulator if there is an exemption in force that exempts private ops generally from compliance with CAR 232. And let's be thankful to our benign regulator for choosing, each day, not to revoke the exemption.

And let's hope that at some point in their busy days and somewhere on their list of priorities for regulatory reform over the next few decades, our benign regulator can manage to arrange for an amendment to the regulations so that the exemption isn't required in the first place.

I reckon we should have a whip around the industry to raise a couple of million or so, to fund the insertion of a couple of words into CAR 232. A big, stressful job for CASA, I know. But with enough time and money and the industry's support, CASA just might be able to arrange it.

"Beyond a point, complexity is fraud."

CAsA have emphatically refused to entertain any amendments to any regulations that mirror the FAA stated "foster or encourage or promote" and by doing so they affirm the industry vote of no confidence, (as stated in The Forsyth Review), by them doing the exact opposite.
It could be this matter is intentional if not incompetent. They can't have it both ways.

EX38/2004
 

I followed my nose using a Google Search and eventually ended up here -https://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2005B00505
which very clearly shows this exemption as being Current.
Cheers,
ORH

Folks,
I think we have established that EX 38/2004 is still current, but, curiously, you will not find it going the ComLaw via the CASA web site that ostensibly has links to all such matters.

However, this still leaves the matter of the "footnote" on the bottom of 38/2004, which almost negates the rest of the exemption, especially if you are an FOI with evil intent.

So, what I don't know is whether some smarty in CASA thought the 38/2004 was extinguished, or whether they thought they were going to hang their hat on the "footnote".

Either way, there has been enough on the subject of CAR 232, including direct representation to CASA to ensure the "top floor" is aware, and to hope that there will be no interference with Ausfly.

I certainly hope so, after what was done to Natfly.

Tootle pip!!

PS: This is yet another prime example of how difficult it is to know what "the aviation law" actually is, in Australia.

Recently, an AOC application was knocked back by CASA. As part of the preparation, the "applicant" went back through five (5) years of AsA HO NOTAMS. It transpired that the knock-back was because there were HO NOTAMS even older, "the applicant" was "deemed" to not have complied with CASA AOC application conditions.

An apology from a scaremonger
 

Having looked at all the posts and relevant materials, I realise that I should apologise for my scaremongering.

As anyone with any experience in the aviation regulatory regime in Australia knows, any guidance produced by CASA is almost invariably inaccurate and misleading.

I should have realised that CASA's guidance on ramp checks does not mean what it says. Despite the heading and content, CASA won't be asking GA PVT pilots for paper or electronic checklists from a check system approved by CASA. The CASA inspectors will know, just by looking, or will accept the pilot's assertion, that the operation is PVT, and will know about an exemption that's not mentioned in the guidance.

I should have realised that the answer to what the requirements are can almost never be answered by looking at the rules: the exemptions are the main regulatory game in Australia.

I should be thankful that the lawfulness of my PVT operations depends on an exemption, granted and revoked at the whim of the regulator.

I should have realised that all the rhetoric about outcomes-based regulations under which exemptions will not be required is just that: empty rhetoric. I should have realised that 28 years is nowhere near enough time to incorporate changes into CAR 232 - which was in the original 1988 regulations - to negate the need for yet another exemption and to make the narrow application of the check system requirements clear on the face of the rules.

Most importantly, I should have realised that almost almost everybody is so confused by the complexity that they just do their best to operate safely, and don't need more distraction and confusion from scaremongers pointing at the five different provisions and documents that you have to read to work out to whom CAR 232 applies and what CASA hopefully intended to say in its guidance.

And as anyone with any experience knows, the guidance will quietly be changed, without any version reference or record, and all of this will never have happened.

My apologies. Now, back to Stockholm and my well-learnt helplessness. :ok:

Note that the exemption, if still in force, only applies to sub regs (2) and (5) so you must have a comprehensive checklist and use it...no memory stuff...use the checklist.

When the noise stops at 500'...get the checklist out and use it or cop a fine.

And be careful of that tricky wording in Schedule 2...

Kaz