[Peetwo]

Part 103 MOS deferred; & RAOz v AGAA war ensues?? - 

From 41:49 here:

And via the Yaffa: 

Standards for Recreational Aircraft deferred as Industry Dissents



11 November 2021





CASA has deferred making the Manual of Standards (MOS) for CASR Part 103 in the face of aviation community feedback.
Part 103 covers the standards for aircraft administered by Approved Self-administering Aviation Organisations (ASAO) such as Recreational Aviation Australia (RAAus) and the Gliding Federation of Australia (GFA). The MOS for Part 105 on parachuting operations has also been deferred.

Part 103 was also set to contain an increased maximum take-off weight of 760 kg, which will now be introduced as an amendment to CAO 95.55.

CASA submitted the draft Part 103 MOS to a technical working group (TWG) of the Aviation Safety Advisory Panel, but on 29 October the TWG responded rejecting the MOS on the grounds that it was over prescriptive.

"The TWG does not agree that the draft Part 103 MOS is suitable for public consultation and believes that it is not fit for purpose in its current form," CASA was told. "The TWG raised significant concern that the draft MOS is overly prescriptive given the type of operations (i.e., recreation) that are intended to operate under Part 103.

"The TWG also raised concern that the draft MOS shifted away from the informed participation philosophy and believes that more responsibility should be given to the individual organisations that are administering these rules given they have operated safely under the current requirements.

"The TWG also advise that there are additive requirements in the draft MOS that have not been thoroughly discussed or debated amongst the TWG or the industry and therefore these policy matters need to be discussed in detail before settling the MOS.

"The TWG are willing to continue working with CASA to settle the MOS. However, given the amount of work required to settle the MOS and the limited time remaining until the commence [sic] date of the regulations, the TWG raise significant concerns that it is unfeasible to expect operators to implement and meet the requirements by 2 December."

CASA and the TWG were able to agree on a proposed pathway forward for the Part 105 MOS, which included provisions for regulations going forward in lieu of the full introduction of the new rules. The pathway included:

• The deferral of the making of the Part 103 MOS to 2022. This will ensure more time is allowed to work through policy matters in further detail to settle the MOS.
  
• The making of a legislative instrument that reflects current requirements contained in the current 95 series CAOs to ensure operators can continue to operate from the 2 December 2021, with the addition of the increase in MTOW that was previously consulted.
  
• Further consultation to occur on proposed changes to the stall speed limitation for light aeroplanes, and access to controlled airspace. It is intended that these consultations commence as soon as practicable and be conducted separately to any work on the MOS.
  

"While the Part 103 MOS is being finalised, these operations will be subject to amended Civil Aviation Orders (CAOs)," a CASA statement released today said. "The aim is to achieve the same outcome as current requirements.

"The amended CAOs will include exemption from Part 103 and relevant provisions in Part 91. CAOs applicable to the operation of sport and recreational aircraft from 2 December 2021 are:

• CAO 95.4
  
• CAO 95.4.1
  
• CAO 95.8
  
• CAO 95.10
  
• CAO 95.12
  
• CAO 95.12.1
  
• CAO 95.32
  
• CAO 95.55
  

"We look forward to continuing to work with the Part 103 technical working group on the matters raised during our collaboration on the MOS development."

Finally, for what it's worth, EWH gives us his OP on this Su_Spenceful development...

Via LMH: http://www.australianflying.com.au/the-l...ember-2021

...Has the Part 103 technical working group (TWG) gone where TWGs before them have failed? The group threw the draft Part 103 Manual of Standards back at CASA declaring it unworkable in it's current form and circled the word "Dissent" on the feedback form to the regulator. And CASA has accepted it. TWGs before have tried that sort of thing before and found what they dissented about was implemented anyway. The TWGs are part of the Aviation Safety Advisory Panel (ASAP) and advice by definition imposes no obligation on anyone. So why on this occasion has CASA accepted the rebuff with a simple "Yeah, nah, you're right." I am tossing around one of two reasons: CASA is regretting submitting a half-baked document, or this shows there is a thawing in the customary frosty response handed out when the aviation community tells the regulator it's wrong about something. I so want to believe the latter because it would show a siesmic shift in attitude towards the value of industry advice and an admission that expertise does exist outside the glassy doors of Aviation House. Contrast this reaction and the reaction to aviation community dissent over Part 61: chalk and cheese. This is not to say that the TWGs haven't been able to influence things in the past, they have, but in nearly every case CASA made amendments then implemented some form of Frankenstein regulation. I hope their acceptance of the Part 103 TWGs rejection of the MOS is a signal that those days may be behind us...

Compare the experience of the Part 103 TWG to the ALAEA's feedback/support for complaint to the ICC on the CASA interaction with the Part 43 TWG: Ref - Addendum: CASE Studies and Motherhood statements

---

Hmm...perhaps there is a whiff of a 'change of attitude' within the regulator - but then we've been here before haven't we?? 


MTF...P2