A Quick "poll" if you have a moment. Much appreciated
 

As I found on the weekend...

What lights do you need on an aircraft for day VFR? How about night VFR or IFR?

What lights do 99% of GA aircraft have?

Now read CAR 196.

As far as we could figure out from CAR 196, all aircraft (excluding RA) must display (even in the middle of the day) the three navigation lights (red/white/green) and two red strobes (because a single fin-mounted strobe doesn't get you the required viewing angles). In the US (at least based on literature from Whelen) you can apparently use either a red or a white strobe, and of course many planes in Australia use this approach - white strobes on the wingtips meet the required viewing angles and can be neatly integrated into the navigation lights, negating the need for a red strobe (particularly under the fuselage). However, from CAR 196 these planes are not legal.

Quite apart from being confusing (is there actually a rule that you can't put diagrams in a legal document?) it'd be much simpler if we just followed the US approach - which appears to be what everyone actually does despite what CASA says.

Unless this has just come into effect ,something doesn't sound correct here. As 90% of the single engine GA fleet wouldn't have 2 red strobes. What they have is usually 1 red beacon (a flashing red lamp not strobe) on the fin or top of the fuselage. Some aircraft also have white strobes on the wing tips but probably less than 50% in total. Plus ofcourse nav lights.

my vote is: neither clear nor concise.

They have been re-writing the regulations to make them clearer and more concise for decades - a project that has always been 'soon to be completed' since the early 1990s. I think the last statement to the recent senate review was there was only 5% left to do.

In those decades the volume of regulations has been "concisified" into a plethora of extra documents, it went from CARs and CAOs into CARs, CAOs, CASRs, CAAPs, (many of which are now individually larger than the original documents they were meant to concisely replace) and they have also been simplified to the point where you need a PhD in law to understand if you have exceeded your flight and duty times.

Rather than do a survey, hand your lawyer friend copies of the CARs, CASRs, CAOs and AIPs - he/she may need a wheelbarrow - and ask them to quickly find, if under the law as it stands now, can a student pilot who last had a dual check 15 days ago, be sent solo? If they are struggling, guide them to CASR 61.115. Then when they think they have the answer, tell him them they also need to look up all the exemptions to the regulations that have had to be made when it was realised the changes were too hastily drawn up without an understanding of the implications and show them "Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 CASA EX46/18 — Dual Flight Checks before Solo Flights (Student Pilots) Exemption 2018". Then show them how many of these exemptions there are.

Then ask them: "how a humble flying instructor (without legal training) can keep on top of all these regulations and exemptions?"

CASA have a regulatory system that focuses on adding more and more convoluted regulation with a focus on forcing compliance and finding individual culpability and resultant punishment to improve safety.

Instructors are required (by CASA) to do Human Factors Training (under threat of $10k fine if not complying). That compulsory training strongly stresses the need to develop a safety culture that encourages self reporting of failures without fear of retribution, that fosters openness about safety failings to find underlying systemic issues and to continually enhance safety.

This seems to me to be ludicrous. CASA Left Hand: "Be open and honest and don't fear punishment for failure. That is the safety culture we want"
CASA Right hand: "If we find you didn't follow a regulation buried inches deep in volume 5 of the CASR, you will be fined and sanctioned"



rant over. Simple answer - count me in the 80%! :)

Definitely NOT clear, and NOT CONCISE.

Just try to read any CASA do. and you'll soon give up from pure 'fatigue'...….

No CHEERS..Nope...NONE at ALL!!

No way clear, no way concise. How can 250 pages describing ONLY pilot licences plus 650 pages of associated "standards" be concise $#%@%$@!! That's just Part 61 for pilot licences - haven't got near an aircraft yet.

Not clear, not concise. = FAILED.

There is nothing clear and concise about anything that CASA controls or has indeed touched. Medical status class 1 until our revered regulator works out how to take that away as well.

neither clear nor concise, complexity way past the fraudulent level......................

The regulations are "Clear": Clearly we are all criminals! The regulations are concise as in 'to the point', the point being only Military and Airlines should be flying!

You know the regulations are completely incomprehensible when you ring CASA for an explanation and even the guy who wrote the original regulation cannot understand it! Their comment was "it was fine until it got sent to Legal" (this actually happened!!!!)

So, no, the current regulations are not clear and concise by any normal meaning of those words.

I vote not clear and not concise

As do I and anybody else who has had any but the most superficial experience of aviation law in Australia.

Advise your lawyer friend that the various aviation "laws" are on a par with the tax regulations for size and complexity, then refer him to the Rule of Law Institute of Australia to explain what that means.

Finally, advise him that the informal policy of CASA , not to be found in any mission statement, is that:" The aviation law is for the safe conviction of pilots and engineers**" ---- the present form and complexity, rigidity and prescription of the regulations never did and does not have anything to do with aviation "safety".

Tootle pip!!

** Statement to the Program Advisory Panel (PAP) of the CASA Review, by CASA lawyer giving testimony to the panel, around 1997.

Definite no from me

The poll results are as expected so far.

@Glen: I'm not sure how much (objective) weight asking ppruners will carry. Perhaps you should physically go to Aspeq test centres and ask candidates to the CPL air law (and those to the RPL and PPL tests too) the very same question. Ideally you'd have a form with relevant questions.

the poll
 

Thankyou so far, for your involvement. I can assure you that this will all be leading to something, so please keep the responses coming. Cheers. Glen

Classic example is the lighting requirements for pilot activated lighting and the need for alternates under various circumstances. Who dreams up of this garbage? I've flown in the USA to airfields with pilot activate lighting and there's none of the complications that our system requires.