Australia going JAR?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: In a suitcase.
Age: 41
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Australia going JAR?
I hope it is the correct place to post this.
A captain told me, a few days ago, that Australia was going to become a JAR country.
Can anyone confirm this and maybe give a date?
A captain told me, a few days ago, that Australia was going to become a JAR country.
Can anyone confirm this and maybe give a date?
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No
There are factions within the CASA who would like to see JAR's implemented, but it will not be politically possible for quite some time (years).
At the moment a major review is taking place to align the Australian aviation regulation system with the FAR's of the USA.
Hope this helps you.
At the moment a major review is taking place to align the Australian aviation regulation system with the FAR's of the USA.
Hope this helps you.
Check Attitude
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Queensland, Australia
Posts: 476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JAR or Bust appearsto be the mind set of a faction within CASA. Unable to determine if it is the ex-military group or the expats from the mother land.
The JAR is a set of core regulations that member bodies (some 35 of them) are free to make their own interpretation of when incorporating them into their native legislation.
Once incorporated they are "JAR" compliant legislation, but with a national flavour. Is this a franchise ?
JAR does not acknowledge that the birthplaces of commercial aviation, (USA, Australia, Canada etc) might already have sound and proven aviation regulation.
One only has to look at traditionally bureacratic countries such as UK and Germany to see what fun they are having ignoring the outside world and generating their flavour of JAR.
The US FAR's are fairly well thought out and not subject to frequent amendment because they probably have got it right by now.
Most JAR countries tend only to have an Airline perspective because geographically they have no requirement for general aviation ( Charter or business aviation).
Very hard for them to grasp the wilderness or vastness of Canada and Alaska, Australia and South Africa, even the USA.
The tyranny of distance and the lack of other transport opportunities has dictated a strong aviation growth outside of the Airline industry.
What suits tiny European countries does not necessarily fit with the needs of vast countries dependant on all modes of aviation.
Australia needs to carefully assess whether or not to buy a JAR franchise in light of it's actual needs.
The JAR is a set of core regulations that member bodies (some 35 of them) are free to make their own interpretation of when incorporating them into their native legislation.
Once incorporated they are "JAR" compliant legislation, but with a national flavour. Is this a franchise ?
JAR does not acknowledge that the birthplaces of commercial aviation, (USA, Australia, Canada etc) might already have sound and proven aviation regulation.
One only has to look at traditionally bureacratic countries such as UK and Germany to see what fun they are having ignoring the outside world and generating their flavour of JAR.
The US FAR's are fairly well thought out and not subject to frequent amendment because they probably have got it right by now.
Most JAR countries tend only to have an Airline perspective because geographically they have no requirement for general aviation ( Charter or business aviation).
Very hard for them to grasp the wilderness or vastness of Canada and Alaska, Australia and South Africa, even the USA.
The tyranny of distance and the lack of other transport opportunities has dictated a strong aviation growth outside of the Airline industry.
What suits tiny European countries does not necessarily fit with the needs of vast countries dependant on all modes of aviation.
Australia needs to carefully assess whether or not to buy a JAR franchise in light of it's actual needs.
PPRuNe Handmaiden
The fuel policy alone will cripple outback flying!
PPRuNeaholic
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Cairns FNQ
Posts: 3,255
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mainframe...
There is probably another reason for that. Last I heard, which isn't all that long ago, the FARs are in a tangle that is proving extremely difficult to sort out. It's been suggested to me that the FAA would love to rewrite the FARs, but it's a matter of knowing where to start because the Regs are so convoluted.
I haven't been able to confirm any of this so it could be wrong, but the FARs comprise a rather massive document. I reckon the lawyers love it!
The US FAR's are fairly well thought out and not subject to frequent amendment because they probably have got it right by now.
I haven't been able to confirm any of this so it could be wrong, but the FARs comprise a rather massive document. I reckon the lawyers love it!
Props are for boats!
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: An Asian Hub
Age: 56
Posts: 994
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Redsnail, what are the JAR requirements? Do they have holding or alternates for Tempos and inters etc. or is it more constrained?
Do they have 30 minutes reserve for Turbines?
just curious....
Regards
Sheep
Do they have 30 minutes reserve for Turbines?just curious....
Regards
Sheep
PPRuNe Handmaiden
In a very quick nutshell...
No holding fuel for wx or traffic. "Local knowledge"
No Inter's
Tempo's mean something else.
I'd have to dig out the exact meaning but it ain't "put 60 min worth of holding fuel onboard".
It means roughly, poor wx for no less than 60 min but no greater than half the validity period of the TAF.
Alternates are carried every where. Sometimes two. However, in Europe there are lots of airfields with ILS's.
I'd have to dig up the references and give you an exact answer.
No holding fuel for wx or traffic. "Local knowledge"
No Inter's
Tempo's mean something else.
I'd have to dig out the exact meaning but it ain't "put 60 min worth of holding fuel onboard".
It means roughly, poor wx for no less than 60 min but no greater than half the validity period of the TAF.
Alternates are carried every where. Sometimes two. However, in Europe there are lots of airfields with ILS's.
I'd have to dig up the references and give you an exact answer.
JARs and FARs are simply sets of requirements, and there are an awful lot of them. If you go to the "useful links" page on "tech-log" you'll find links to most of them. They are interpreted within national systems, sometimes differently.
For most of the main standards there is in-fact a joint JAA-FAA committee somewhere trying to converge the standards, or at-least understand what each other are up to. So, in the long run, I don't think it matters much which way a particular country goes since in most issues they'll end up using pretty much the same book.
The big issue really is how a particular national authority elects to use the JARs. A classic balls-up was the UK CAA treatment of JAR-FCL (Flight Crew Licensing) which after some years is still giving most people a lot of grief. On the other hand, the use of JAR-22 (gliders and motorgliders) has been a complete success in ever country I've dealt with. JAR-23 and FAR-23 (normal, utility and aerobatic aeroplanes) are virtually identical (so long as you have no more than 2 engines anyway), BUT it's very clear that the UK and US (for example) treat them with occasionally very different rigour.
So, I would suggest to Australians, speaking from a JAR country, that it'll make no real difference. What's important is CASA's treatment of your industry, which is a totally separate issue.
Incidentally, I've heard rumours that with the advent of EASA, JARs may in-time become ECARs (European Civil Aviation Requirements), although I doubt that anything but the cover sheet and reference number is likely to really change.
G
For most of the main standards there is in-fact a joint JAA-FAA committee somewhere trying to converge the standards, or at-least understand what each other are up to. So, in the long run, I don't think it matters much which way a particular country goes since in most issues they'll end up using pretty much the same book.
The big issue really is how a particular national authority elects to use the JARs. A classic balls-up was the UK CAA treatment of JAR-FCL (Flight Crew Licensing) which after some years is still giving most people a lot of grief. On the other hand, the use of JAR-22 (gliders and motorgliders) has been a complete success in ever country I've dealt with. JAR-23 and FAR-23 (normal, utility and aerobatic aeroplanes) are virtually identical (so long as you have no more than 2 engines anyway), BUT it's very clear that the UK and US (for example) treat them with occasionally very different rigour.
So, I would suggest to Australians, speaking from a JAR country, that it'll make no real difference. What's important is CASA's treatment of your industry, which is a totally separate issue.
Incidentally, I've heard rumours that with the advent of EASA, JARs may in-time become ECARs (European Civil Aviation Requirements), although I doubt that anything but the cover sheet and reference number is likely to really change.
G
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 960
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Im currently studying for a British licence *JAR*, so that would be good for me, save me a lot of time, but *years* is to far away to even consider, Ill have to continue!!
Cheers
Cheers
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Sand Pit
Posts: 343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FAR/JAR & CASA
I have a US ATP and have noticed that the requirements have changed (more restrictive) to convert from a US ATP to the Ozzi ATPL.
Previously it was a paperwork issue but now its the IREX, Air Law writtens and a check ride........anyone else found this?
Previously it was a paperwork issue but now its the IREX, Air Law writtens and a check ride........anyone else found this?
For 1 thing, JAR medical standards on eyesight would put me out of professional flying. Here in Oz I have an unrestricted class1 medical with my eyes at -7.5 diopters. Thats almost twice the limit of the standard for the JAR class 1.
If JAR was introduced, would my class1 be grandfathered??
If JAR was introduced, would my class1 be grandfathered??
PPRuNe Handmaiden
126.7.
No idea. Knowing the UK CAA they'd find something else to hang an antipodean on.
Ozgrade, you may want to check this. +/-5 dioptres is for the initial. It goes to +/- 8 dioptres for renewals.
No idea. Knowing the UK CAA they'd find something else to hang an antipodean on.
Ozgrade, you may want to check this. +/-5 dioptres is for the initial. It goes to +/- 8 dioptres for renewals.
PPRuNe Handmaiden
T&G,
I think you ought to look at the immigration differences between the two countries.
If an Antipodean has no ancestral rights to the UK (or Europe) then as a pilot it is practically impossible to emigrate here. As a British pilot it is possible to emigrate to Australia.
To emigrate to the UK you have to have higher degrees such as a masters or PhD and/or be very prominent in the business field.
With respect to the licences, the conversion between a UK licence to an Australian one is comparatively easy.
I never said the UK was a closed shop. Just trying to get the CAA to be consistent is a challenge. This affects the locals as much as it affects the "foreigners".
I think you ought to look at the immigration differences between the two countries.
If an Antipodean has no ancestral rights to the UK (or Europe) then as a pilot it is practically impossible to emigrate here. As a British pilot it is possible to emigrate to Australia.
To emigrate to the UK you have to have higher degrees such as a masters or PhD and/or be very prominent in the business field.
With respect to the licences, the conversion between a UK licence to an Australian one is comparatively easy.
I never said the UK was a closed shop. Just trying to get the CAA to be consistent is a challenge. This affects the locals as much as it affects the "foreigners".
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
T&G - I must be missing something. Have CASA recently changed their requirements for conversion from UK to Aus? Pardon my ignorance in this area as I haven't looked into UK to Aus.
I've looked into the Aus to Uk, and I think redsnail has dabbled a "little" in this area. Basically my Aus licence isn't worth the paper its written on unless I have 500 multicrew hrs (which I don't have). Even then I would still have to spend a small fortune to convert the licence. Unless something changes i.e. I win Lotto or the Laws change (yeah right..keep buying lotto 126.7!) I will never fly in Europe.
It was really my mistake to have trained here. I was young and silly and did not look into it enough. I wish I had read pprune all those years ago.
PS How are things going over there Redsnail...?
I've looked into the Aus to Uk, and I think redsnail has dabbled a "little" in this area. Basically my Aus licence isn't worth the paper its written on unless I have 500 multicrew hrs (which I don't have). Even then I would still have to spend a small fortune to convert the licence. Unless something changes i.e. I win Lotto or the Laws change (yeah right..keep buying lotto 126.7!) I will never fly in Europe.
It was really my mistake to have trained here. I was young and silly and did not look into it enough. I wish I had read pprune all those years ago.
PS How are things going over there Redsnail...?
