[Peetwo]

The Yaffa on Part 91...

Courtesy Oz Flying...

Civil Aviation Safety Authority inspector overseeing aircraft operations. (CASA)


CASA publishes Part 91 "Road Rules" Package
13 Aug 2015

CASA today published CASR Part 91 general operating rules for public review before they become law.

Part 91 is package of regulations that consolidated both new and current rules from the Civil Aviation Regulations and Civil Aviation Orders, creating what CASA describes as the "rules of the road."

"Once in place, they will form the foundation for all civil aviation flight operations," CASA's Summary of Proposed Regulation (SPR) states, "much like the 'rules of the road', and will apply to all pilots, aircraft owners and operators, people who fuel and handle aircraft, loading personnel, air display organisers and air traffic services."

Part 91 covers rules such as responsibilities of the pilot in command, right-of-way rules, collision avoidance, minimum heights, VFR and IFR rules, flight instruments, emergency equipment, airspace classification and navigation regulations.

Most significantly, CASA has created a Part 91 Manual of Standards (MOS), which transfers most of the technical detail out of the CASR and into the MOS. According to the SPR, this was done to "allow CASA to more effectively respond to the need for changed requirements, as the MOS is more easily amended than the CASR."

Part 91 will not apply to UAVs and rockets (Part 101), aircraft covered by Recreational Aviation Administration Organisations such as RA-Aus (future Part 103) and free piloted balloons (future Part 131).

Part 91 will be open for public review until 6 October. The proposed legislation, list of amendments and the SPR are all on the CASA website.

In other words we'll let you have a look at it and try to come to terms with it, between now & Oct 06, then we'll bring out the couple of thousand page MOS and expect you to comply the very next time you dare to commit aviation - FFS

While on Part 91 Stan the Man has stumbled across a strange dichotomy, especially when you consider the re-opening of the ATSB PelAir cover-up investigation...

Hi All,

 
All of a sudden there is a pressing need for the preservation of “recordings”, in fact so important that it involves 50 penalty units.
 
I haven’t compared with the existing regs, (yes we should all know these off by heart!) In light of the apparent total disregard of same in the case of the PelAir floatation study, who was /now is responsible and how many Penalty Units apply or applied?
 
Wonder why all of a sudden this is such an important “safety” matter?  CAsA certainly would not use it against anyone in Court, would they? But then again few get their day in court and 'BLANK' (name withheld but guesses welcome - Hint starts with "A" & ends in "I" ) would hold any non-incriminating evidence back as not relevant in [this] action. So in the PelAir case money saved for the taxpayer. Another win for “safety”
 
Remember “Empty skies are safe skies”, here’s another thought along the lines of our “carbon” output reduction, we could/are leading the world in the reduction of G.A. flying – worth a mention at the Paris talks!
 
Regards

  
Here is the Part 91 reference to which STM refers:

91.865 Flight recorders—preserving recordings of immediately reportable matters

EXPOSURE DRAFT

(1) The operator of an aircraft for a flight contravenes this sub regulation if:
(a) the aircraft is fitted with an operative flight data recorder, operative cockpit voice recorder or operative combination recorder; and
(b) an immediately reportable matter occurs in relation to the aircraft; and
© the requirement mentioned in sub regulation (2) is not met.
(2) The requirement is that the flight data recording, cockpit voice recording or combination recorder recording of the period of the occurrence of the matter is preserved:
(a) if the Australian Transport Safety Bureau notifies the operator, within 30 days of the matter occurring, that the operator is not required to preserve the recordings—until the date of that notification; or
(b) if the Australian Transport Safety Bureau notifies the operator, within 30 days of the matter occurring, that the Schedule 1 Amendments Part 1 Main amendments 118 Civil Aviation Legislation Amendment (Part 91) Regulation 2015 No. , 2015 operator is required to preserve the recordings for a certain period—until the end of that period; or
© in any other case—for 30 days after the day the immediately reportable matter occurred.
(3) Sub regulation (1) does not apply if:
(a) the recordings are not preserved; and
(b) the operator took reasonable steps in the circumstances to preserve the recordings.
(4) A person commits an offence of strict liability if the person contravenes sub regulation (1).
Penalty: 50 penalty units.
Note: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matters in sub regulation (3): see subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code.

Hmm...wonder if that could be back dated, remembering that CASA was initially asked by the ATSB if they would contribute to funding the recovery of VH-NGA's CVR/FDR.
The ATSB? - Well the Chief Commissioner would probably argue that the CVR/FDR was perfectly preserved in 40+ metres of sea water offshore from Norfolk Island (that is provided, of course, it is still there.. )

Follow up to the above post, Hitch's weekly wrap is IMO worth regurgitating in full (you'll see why.. ):

The Last Minute Hitch: 14 August 2015
14 Aug 2015

General aviation may soon be subjected to a classic piece of bureaucratic bastardry: the Aviation Security Identification Card (ASIC) could become mandatory. So far, pilots who haven't needed to go into security-controlled airports didn't need an ASIC, but they did have to have an Aviation ID (AVID) issued by CASA. In a discussion paper released last December, the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development (DIRD) asked for feedback on a number of options about what to do with the ASIC. One of the options tabled was to remove or integrate the AVID into the ASIC, given that only 300 AVIDs have been issued. We've known for some time that the Australian Transport Security Act has demanded pilots undergo security checking, so if the AVID is removed the only way a pilot can comply with the Act is to get an ASIC ... whether they need it or not. It seems that's what DIRD wants, betrayed in the discussion paper with this line:

"If airside ASIC display requirements were to reduce, a corresponding increased reliance on AVIDs may in effect draw away from some of the benefits delivered by the ASIC scheme, such as the background checking standard delivered under the AusCheck framework."

What is not mentioned in the DP anywhere is the option for the AVID to stand in for a red ASIC, which is the most logical, economic and fair option. There is, however, some consideration being given to reducing the physical areas on the ground in which ASICs are needed. There's more to come on this, probably before the end of the year.

And by the end of the year we should just about have finished going through the new CASR Part 91 draft released this week. Part 91 is all the general rules we need to abide by when operating aircraft, so you can imagine this is a big document. So, genuine thanks to CASA for publishing a list of amendments, which will make it easier for us to see what is changing, and for including a Manual of Standards. One of the most interesting changes slotted in comes under section 91.120 (3), which is a list of all documents to be carried on an aircraft in domestic flight: aeronautical information, weather forecast and the flight technical log for the aircraft. It seems we don't have to carry our licence and medical cert anymore.

On the downside, Part 91 still includes the hideous statement about strict liability, despite assurances that steps were being taken to relieve us of this prejudice. According to CASA, they are "reassessing the penalties in the Civil Aviation legislation, in the course of which the categorisation of certain offences as strict liability offences will be considered." So what happens to the shiny, new Part 91 if some of these offences are reclassified? Do we burn the new legislation and start again?

Part 66 has come under fire from the maintenance repair and overhaul (MRO) people for causing one of the industries great unintended consequences: it has lowered the standard of maintenance training. According to their association, AMROBA, apprentices coming out of CASA Part 66 schools don't have the spanner skills of those coming from the TAFE system, but the TAFEs are shutting down because they can't get funding. Consequently, Part 66 has put the industry in a more precarious position than it did before. Operators aren't happy, and some are even saying that work done by Part 66-trained engineers often has to be redone.

On the plus side, Matt Hall is on track this weekend with another real chance to score his first race win in the Red Bull Air Race series. He was looking for all money like a winner in Budapest, but the knock-out format worked against him, and even though he was third fastest in the Round of 8, didn't qualify for the final. In typical Matt fashion, he's taking his performance as an indicator that he's doing a lot right, and it's full steam ahead for Matt Hall Racing at Ascot on Sunday. Sooner or later he's going to crack one, and although the British pilots will be fired-up to win on home soil, our man cannot be written off.

May your gauges always be in the green,

Hitch

"...Do we burn the new legislation and start again?.."

Hmm..anyone would think Hitch had been reading Aunty Pru -"We won't sleep until the regs are burning" ...



IMO however that's the best idea Hitch has ever written...

MTF..P2