[Peetwo]

Part 43 the latest Fort Fumble regulatory reform clusterduck?? - 

Via CM's Part 43 thread, off the UP:

Clinton McKenzie

Key point 3: Please don’t introduce more undefined words that will create more uncertainty

The term “compensation or reward” appears five times in the draft MOS. As drafted, aircraft which carry a person (other than a crew member) for compensation or reward or are used to conduct flight training for compensation or reward are subject to 100 hourly inspections (as well as annual inspections) but other Part 43 aircraft are not: s 3.15(4). (There is specific provision for LSAs used in some ‘compensation or reward’ operations: s 3.05(1).)

There are numerous instances of the term “hire or reward” elsewhere in the Australian rules but, so far as I can tell, the draft Part 43 MOS is the only legislative instrument that uses “compensation or reward”. Neither the word “compensation” nor “reward” appears anywhere in FAR Part 43. The words used in FAR Part 91 – that is the FAR which determines whether an annual inspection or 100 hourly inspection, or both, are required for an aircraft subject of the FARs – the term “compensation or hire” is used.

One assumption of interpretation is that if different words are used, different meaning are intended. Each of the words “hire”, “compensation” and “reward” differs from the others. None of them is defined in the aviation safety rules in Australia.

Compensation is what people get for a sore back after been ‘tailended’ on the road. Is that the intended meaning for the purposes of the draft MOS? If a pilot’s mates pay for the fuel on their next outback flight in an aircraft of which the pilot is the registered operator, is the aircraft being used for “compensation” within the meaning of the draft MOS? If an instructor teaches student pilots for free, as a charitable act, is the warm inner glow the instructor gets from doing good a “reward” within the meaning of the draft MOS?

When some rules apply to aircraft operated “for compensation or reward” and others apply to aircraft operated “for hire or reward”, there will likely be unintended gaps or overlaps and there will certainly be doubt about the precise scope of any gaps or overlaps, absent protracted and expensive court and tribunal consideration and decisions. That outcome is precisely what the eye-wateringly expensive and never-ending regulatory reform program was supposed to avoid.

If someone made a sedulous decision to use the words “compensation or reward” instead of “compensation or hire” per the relevant FAR or “hire and reward” per the current rules in Australia, it would be very helpful if that person were to provide some explanation as to the reasons and understanding of the consequences. If it was not a sedulous decision, it would be very prudent for the words to be reconsidered in the context of the whole regulatory package. At the moment, there is nothing that I can find in the Part 43 ‘Plain English Guide’ about what CASA reckons the term ‘compensation or reward’ means in the draft MOS. (And while on the point of guidance material, I trust that CAAP 43B will be revised and updated when the CAR 43B is repealed and the new Part 43 commences, as the CAAP currently contains unsupported and potentially risky twaddle at paras 4.2.4 and 4.2.6.)

Comments in response - 

RVDT

Good old CASA - bringing you the clusterf..ck that no sane person elsewhere on the planet could dream up in a million years. Keeping Australia "unique" and they do it with a straight face as well to boot. Bless.

Ladies and Gentleman I present the wheel - 2022 version.

---

aroa

Nice ones, C Mac. I do hope you send a copy of all this toMiss Spent.
If she were to read through Part 43, which I doubt, she would/ should choke on her morning tea Ginger Nut Snap.

RVDT is right. CAsA really is the asylum divorced from normal reality.

How about this. The LAME brain can’t remember which part of the job sheet to sign off, said sheet being in the office 5 paces away. No, you must have a wheelie desk beside the job, so the LAME can turn around and sign off.

Oh no , that might cause confusion between jobs and job sheet. One must tether the wheelie desk to the helo or whatever is being jobbed. Just don’t trip over that tether and injure yourself.
Yes, the world is full of cretins out there in GA land, but wait , we are saved, CAsA are keeping Oz skies safe from falling aircraft parts and bodies.
Arent we lucky.

---

Sunfish

MOS 2.33 - You can lose the right to maintain your own aircraft for any reason, including alleged breaches of ANY aviation regulation or Airspace regulation. - not just those relating to maintenance. So for example, allegedly breach controlled airspace, now you can’t maintain the aircraft.

‘The legislation makes it a strict liability offence not to exactly comply with the MOS.

‘’By definition then, any defect, or incident or accident that is caused by imperfect maintenance involves a criminal act of strict liability.

---

Squawk7700

Don’t get so hung up on this whole strict liability thing. I was headed to court for a non-aviation strict liability offence next week, and I told the prosecutor there was no way in hell I was pleading guilty, so they dropped it like a hotcake.

CM in reply:

Originally Posted by Squawk7700 View Post
Don’t get so hung up on this whole strict liability thing. I was headed to court for a non-aviation strict liability offence next week, and I told the prosecutor there was no way in hell I was pleading guilty, so they dropped it like a hotcake.

But CASA can suspend or revoke your pilot’s licence or maintenance approval, or whatever, for contravention of a strict liability offence provision, without a court having ever found you committed the offence…

And you might be ‘cool, calm and collected’ facing the prospect of being prosecuted, but others are not, particularly when CASA has an uncanny propensity to drag things out for years...

Originally Posted by Sunfish View Post
MOS 2.33 - You can lose the right to maintain your own aircraft for any reason, including alleged breaches of ANY aviation regulation or Airspace regulation. - not just those relating to maintenance. So for example, allegedly breach controlled airspace, now you can’t maintain the aircraft. ….

Typical overreach. Imagine if a licensed motor mechanic lost his or her mechanic’s licence and livelihood because they were fined for driving at 65 in a 60 zone.

And the inclusion of compliance and enforcement-related provisions in a MOS is a complete perversion of what a MOS is supposed to be. The clue is in the name...

Originally Posted by RVDT View Post
Good old CASA - bringing you the clusterf..ck that no sane person elsewhere on the planet could dream up in a million years. Keeping Australia "unique" and they do it with a straight face as well to boot. Bless.

Ladies and Gentleman I present the wheel - 2022 version.

In response to one of the questions in the CASA ‘review’ of aviation medical policy, I said the primary risk was that CASA would spend a lot of time and money reinventing the wheel but produce something that isn’t round.

Finally from Checklist Charlie...

This demonstrates exactly why I am so glad I no longer am beholding to the CAsA's of this world for my income and livelihood.

The greatest impediment to aviation safety is the Attorney Generals Department requirement that government legislation all be written the same way. Unfortunately it is written with so much gobblegook that it cannot be understood by mere mortals that do not hold a LLB.

Some oik has written lovely legislation that has no bearing on my ability to push/pull/twist a control column.

Fifty plus years ago I learned that there was only one "Law" I had to follow religiously, That is I must manage the relationship between Thrust, Drag, Weight and Lift. Everything else was very much secondary and superfluous if it didn't contribute to the effective management of those 4 forces.

CAsA has again demonstrated its lack of understanding of and irrelevance to aviation in general by producing such tripe.

Regulations are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men- Harry Broadhurst RAF to a yound Douglas Bader (I believe)

CC (Ret'd)

UDB! - 


MTF...P2