[Peetwo]

Of hungry lawyers.

There’s a happy thought; and perhaps that is the FAA’s intent. They seem to have taken a very grown up stance on UAV ‘control’, before the inevitable law suits start piling up. By getting in early and setting the rules in place, they are thinking of avoiding getting dragged into tedious, pointless, expensive court battles. By stating that it is ‘illegal’ to do such and such; or, thou shalt not without etc. they step out of potential areas of ‘legal’ conflict.  It is far too much to expect CASA to be so far sighted; they cannot imagine anyone daring to file suit and blame them for anything. But, sure as eggs, soon or late, someone will decide that a CASA rule is a good case to prosecute – and win. Then there will be yet another, retrospective ‘knee-jerk’ reaction, the inevitable over kill and more draconian regulations produced – after the fact.

It is a very adolescent stance: it is also naïve.  It is also fraught with ‘political’ peril, for it will be the minister of whom the awkward questions in the media are asked: when someone gets hurt, or a crime is committed, or a high profile bare arse is plastered all over the media. UAV’s are a ticking time bomb; there is no question about its going bang; only when.

Choc frog P2 – the legal eagles will be sharpening their claws and keeping a sharp eye out for a potential earner; baby needs new shoes and all that. Are having a head full of porridge instead of brain and an ability to work in blinkers prerequisites for a CASA management role; certainly it seems to be so. Heigh Ho.

Toot toot.

"K" said...

 "..But, sure as eggs, soon or late, someone will decide that a CASA rule is a good case to prosecute – and win. Then there will be yet another, retrospective ‘knee-jerk’ reaction, the inevitable over kill and more draconian regulations produced – after the fact..."

If anyone doubts the veracity of which the Ferryman speaks, you only need visit the historical archive of Part 61 that spent a decade in gestation, only to be hatched as the single most diabolical regulation to be hung, like a festering cancerous millstone, around the neck of industry...  

In the latest sickening update to the Part 61 page count and rule by exemption bollocks, Wodger Weekes-as-piss and his 'Tiger team' has the audacity to state..

"..Taskforce managers are currently taking stock of the extensive range of work already delivered and working through the issues yet to be finalised before they commence the transition to business as usual.." 

For those that have a strong stomach here is the rest of the latest update:19 September 2016

And this is where the current list of additional exemptions and amended instruments related to Part 61 is at:

Exemptions

• Exemption - flight examiner rating proficiency check (EPC) and professional development requirements (PDP): CASA EX133/16 and CASA EX134/16
  
• Exemption - flight examiner rating for holders of CAO 82.0 check pilot approvals: CASA 106/16
  
• Exemption - aerial application proficiency check and operator proficiency check (head of flight operations) - aeroplanes: CASA EX105/16
  
• Exemption - instrument proficiency checks for aircraft pilot type ratings: (CASA EX93/16)
  
• Exemption - CASR Part 61 aircraft flight reviews: (CASA EX97/16)
  
• Exemption - CASR Part 61 aeronautical knowledge examinations and two year completion period: CASA EX86/16
  
• Exemption - aeronautical experience for an NVIS rating or endorsement: CASA EX77/16
  
• Exemption - single-pilot turbojet aeroplane specific instrument proficiency check exemption: CASA EX41/16 
  
• Exemption - from completion of an approved training course in multi-crew cooperation: CASA EX225/15
  
• Exemption - against ATPL flight test requirements: CASA EX222/15
  
• Exemption - English language proficiency assessments: CASA EX146/15
  
• Exemption - logging of time in flight for co-pilots on single-pilot certificated aircraft: CASA EX116/15
  
• Exemption - Parts 141 and 142 - CASA approval of kinds of aircraft: CASA EX126/15
  
• Exemption - from certain low-level rating requirements: CASA 92/15
  
• Exemption - dual flight checks before solo flights by student pilots: CASA EX 78/15
  
• Exemption - aeronautical experience requirements for grant of commercial pilot licences - aeroplane category: CASA EX22/15
  
• Exemption - foreign cadet pilots taking flight test for a commercial pilot licence - class 1 medical certificate (replacement exemption September 2015): CASA EX156/15
  
• Exemption - aerial application rating and firefighting endorsement (replacement exemption August 2015)
  

Conditions on authorisations - regulation 11.068
Part 61 Manual of Standards

• Part 61 Manual of Standards amendment instrument
  

Part 61 legislative instruments

• Prescription of aircraft and ratings - Part 61
  
• Prescribed qualification standards for flight simulation training devices (MCC training - aeroplane) (Edition1)
  
• Prescription of aircraft and rating - Agusta Westland AW169
  

Regulation 61.040 approvals

• Overview
  
• Approvals to conduct flight tests for issue of class and type ratings
  
• Approvals to conduct flight tests for training endorsements
  
• Approval to conduct flight tests for low-level ratings, low-level endorsements and mustering endorsements
  
• Approval to conduct flight tests and grant low level rating endorsements for sling operations and winch and rappelling operations
  

Part 141 and 142 legislative instruments

• Regulation 141.035 approval to conduct flight training for helicopter firefighting endorsement
  
• Regulation 142.045 - Prescription - type ratings for CASR Part 142 flight training (Edition 3)
  
• Regulation 141.035 - approval to conduct flight training for low-level ratings, low-level endorsements and mustering endorsements
  
• Approval under regulation 141.035 - for regulation 217 training and checking organisations to conduct certain Part 141 flight training AND approval under regulation 142.040 - for regulation 217 training and checking organisations to conduct certain Part 142 flight training
  
• Variation of AOCs - authorisation of regulation 217 training and checking organisations to conduct certain Part 142 flight training in aircraft
  

UDB...

While on 'Mythical Reform' note the following from the RAAA thread:

All quiet on the Western front, until..??-

[url=http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/aviation/aviations-fatigue-risk-management-system-needs-complete-rethink/news-story/724c19a35a59dd0a95a36b8beba23597#comments][/url]
It is time the Civil Aviation Safety Authority settled the fatigue risk management system debate once and for all.

The FRMS is designed to ensure flight crews are not subjected to the adverse effects of fatigue while on duty. The FRMS guides the design and management of rostering systems.

It also provides for crew education and awareness around lifestyle choices and the science behind sleep patterns.

The present regulations have provided a safe operational environment for regular public transport in regional Australian operations for many years.

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau statistics support this contention.

CASA can design and make laws in several guises. One option is the drafting of civil aviation orders. The proposed rules must be put on hold and CASA needs to carry out a comprehensive review of the new regulations.

This should include a comparison with fatigue risk management rules in overseas jurisdictions such as the US, Europe and New Zealand.

The proposed fatigue rules contained in Civil Aviation Order 48.1 pertaining to Australian regional aviation are far more restrictive than in these countries and CASA has not provided any valid justification for such an unnecessary impost on the regional aviation industry.

For example, the Royal Flying Doctor Service (West Australian section) employs about 50 pilots. The new CAO 48.1 would mean it would have to employ an additional 17 pilots at a cost of $2.1 million every year, for no demonstrated safety outcome.

This is a completely unwarranted attack on one of the safest and most professionally managed organisations in the world.

The review must not be conducted on the CASA premise that fatigue is an unmitigated risk in the industry and simply examine whether CAO 48.1 will fix “the fatigue issue”. It must examine whether there is any empirical evidence that justifies the new CAO 48.1 rule set.

It is ironic that Australian regional operators are faced with the most restrictive and costly rules in the world yet operate in a far less fatigue-inducing environment than the US or Europe.

Everyone agrees that fatigue is a hazard that needs managing.

Everyone agrees that long-haul operations need a comprehensive FRMS.

Everyone who is actually working in the industry and operating in a prudent and safe manner understands the requirements and application of CAO 48.0 plus the standard industry exemptions.

Everyone (including the ATSB) who takes an objective view of the status quo agrees there are no unmitigated fatigue issues in regional Australian regular public transport operations.

CASA has yet to supply the Regional Aviation Association of Australia with a substantive supporting safety case despite three Freedom of Information requests.

Neither has CASA ever expended any effort to investigate the “state of the nation” and actually sit down with operators and their safety management systems and obtain the real data. CASA claims it simply does not have the resources for such action.

The wonderfully feel-good written communications from CASA very recently talks about collaboration, consultation, being a fair regulator, just culture and so on. This is at complete odds with what is actually happening.

As for any International Civil Aviation Organisation-compliant red herring argument, don’t be distracted.

We can easily establish that the status quo of SMS, 48.0 and the standard industry exemptions are ICAO-compliant.

The industry would welcome an independent review, but not simply of the efficacy of CAO 48.1 to manage fatigue. That is not our argument, never has been and never will be.

Any review needs to start right back at the beginning and establish if there is in fact an unmitigated risk that needs addressing.

We need a truly independent risk analysis to determine if there is in fact an unmitigated problem in the first place. We believe it would be best conducted by an overseas expert as we doubt there are any independent reviewers available in Australia. They all have a vested interest in the prosecution of CAO 48.1 as they stand to make significant windfalls from drafting myriad FRMS systems.

Any review should be well funded as just going to tender may result in the lowest cost option with the outcome not supported by the industry.

I wish CASA would listen to the industry, accept reality and announce a moratorium on the starting date of CAO 48.1. That way we can all take a step back from the brink, stop the public stoushes and take a more professional and cool-headed approach.

CASA got itself into this embarrassing position by assuming there was a problem and concocted CAO 48.1.

It remains a case of a sledgehammer looking for a shoe tack.

Mike Higgins is chief executive of the Regional Aviation Association of Australia

Quote from Mike Higgins - "..In the name of greater air safety, Civil Aviation Order 48.1 proposes tighter regulations, but are they unwarranted?.."  -

What struck me, with the article and above quote, is realistically you could replace 'CAO 48.1' with your favourite bollocks, recently written, voluminous regulation and the article with few alterations would not lose context one iota...



MTF...P2