PPRuNe Forums - CASA re-defines "General Aviaiton" to suit itself

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)

- The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions (https://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions-91/)

- - CASA re-defines "General Aviaiton" to suit itself (https://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/614660-casa-re-defines-general-aviaiton-suit-itself.html)

CASA re-defines "General Aviaiton" to suit itself

I read with interest that CASA proposes adopting FAA model rules for General Aviation maintenance.

This seems like a good idea until you go to their Consultation Portal and read their definition of GA.

Quote:

How do we define general aviation?General aviation covers all flying activity carried out by VH registered aircraft other than charter and air transport operations. This includes flying training, mustering, firefighting and emergency service operations, search and rescue, aerial surveying and photography, towing, and private flying.

I am pretty certain that the vast majority of Charter operators consider themselves to be General Aviation.

What's the impact on the GA operator that uses their C172s and C182s and U206s for flight training AND for scenic flights?
...we either have duplicate aircraft, or have more expensive maintenance, and struggle to compete against Training-only operators.

Similarly the Fatigue rules were written as though GA operators live and work in isolated silos.

What a ******* mess.

Have to agree. Can you rovide a reference or link pls

The relevant page on the Consultation Hub is HERE

Quote:

GA maintenance regulations: US model preferred

The summary of consultation on the proposed changes to General Aviation (GA) Maintenance regulations has been published on the Consultation Hub.CASA received valuable feedback and insights from the aviation community, confirming a strong preference to adopt the United States’ Federal Aviation Regulations.There were 89 responses from aviation representative organisations, maintenance and training organisations, recreational flying and charter operators, maintenance engineers, pilots and private aircraft owners. All responses identified issues with the existing regulations and indicated support for change to a simpler and more understandable set of rules. Sixty-three responses indicated support for adopting a set of rules from another jurisdiction, with 78 per cent supporting the US and 11 per cent New Zealand.A Technical Working Group (TWG), established by the Aviation Safety Advisory Panel, has reviewed the consultation feedback and agreed with adopting the US model. This is seen as having the potential to deliver the best outcomes in cost savings to the aviation community, while at the same time ensuring an appropriate level of safety is achieved. The TWG’s final report is expected to be published soon. The project is on track for meeting critical milestones, including having our policy settled by the end of the year.CASA will publish further details on the proposed policy and invite public comment via the Consultation Hub by early November 2018.

CASA is using the ICAO definition:General aviation (GA) activities. All civil aviation operations other than scheduled air services and non-scheduled air transport operations for remuneration or hire (Annex 6, Part II). For ICAO statistical purposes the general aviation activities are classified into non-commercial business flights, aerial work, instructional and pleasure flying, and other flying.

I accept that you are absolutely technically correct GolfGolfCharlie.

...but how many Australian GA pilots are aware of or would agree with the ICAO definition?

If you use the term "General Aviation" in an email to people flying Barons and Chieftains and C402s and KingAirs and Caravans and hell, even Metros and B1900s, what would THEY take the term to mean?

I agree the distinction should be drawn differently so that charter does not get drawn into the RPT grouping. But then there was a time when everybody understood what other terms meant but society has permitted acceptance of alternative interpretations. It is within the capacity of CASA to adopt a meaning more consistent with the Australian vernacular and inform ICAO of the difference which will then be noted in the ICAO Annex - it is something they have done before.
CASA has also adopted a wider view of the requirement for SMS than the ICAO convention - except for approved training operations SMS are not required for organisations with only domestic ops.

I find it sad, but in some ways amusing, that the Australian aviation industry hold out hope that the very same administrators who have implemented the regulation reform debacle will somehow change the reg’s to bring the industry back to life!

Quote:

If you use the term "General Aviation" in an email to people flying Barons and Chieftains and C402s and KingAirs and Caravans and hell, even Metros and B1900s, what would THEY take the term to mean?

Ay, and there's the rub!:hmm:

As a literary figure which was the product of A. A. Milne's imagination is supposed to have said;
'...when I use a word, it means exactly what I choose it to mean..."

Or something like that anyway.:}

Don't be ridiculous Horatio, we all know a Baron used for Charter should be kept to the same standards as a B737! They're clearly in the same category....

Well in my time, GA was all that was not RPT or MIL. Somewhat simple, but easy to understand. What drives these stupid changes?

Quote:

What drives these stupid changes?

Egos, power, attempts to justify their positions, money........ (insert your own definitions and repeat when and where necessary)

C’mon. You know the answer: Safety.