First - Reform the Regulator.
TB’s in depth look at how we came to the present sorry legislative state has provoked some interesting commentary. Usually, I try to summarise the comment into a nutshell to keep down the word count; however some of it, stand alone says it all very neatly. One of our senior associates penned the following missive in response to a question circulated on an E-mail loop. I think it’s worth sharing.
When we put Parts 21-35 in place, they were "better" than the FARs, i.e.: lest restrictive, with a few innovations ---- the most obvious being Limited Category, with far greater freedom than the US equivalent.
And a great success.
Sadly, a combination of CASA and AWAL have messed Limited up, with the nonsense Part 132, which takes some hundreds of pages to say what a couple of short regulations used to say. This also made a nonsense of the Experimental Exhibition/Air Racing cat. of Part 21.---- and none of it ever had anything to do with air safety.
Part 21 was the foundation for the vast expansion of AUF/RAOz, and a huge increase in amateur building, once the restrictions of the old AABA was bypassed, as was monopoly control by SAAA.
Likewise, in the original Part 21, we had provision for industry certification in the Primary Category, to what would now be called a "consensus" standard, CASA quietly "repealed" this when nobody was looking, then along came LSA --- and we "adopted " it, largely because CASA could not be held responsible for the "standards" ---- "blame" somebody else". Put another way, we were years ahead of LSA, but CASA stonewalled it, and then pulled the plug by burying the repeal in a much bigger tranche of regulations.
Don't forget CASA has also screwed up the PIFR, so it is nothing like the original we put in place (which was more flexible than the basic FAA IFR) ---- sadly troglodytes in the industry are as much to blame as CASA for this backwards step. The AOPA V-P who gets 90% of the credit for the original PIFR, A.R.(Tony) Mitchell, must be spinning in his grave.
The NZ regulations are in may ways a better starting point than the FARs, because they are largely the FARs cleaned up, years of accumulated excrescences removed, but there are few things that we could do that are smarter than the NZ regs.
The core problem with our whole aviation suite is that it is not intended for the benefit of the aviation sector, it is, to quote a former very senior CAA/CASA lawyer, who is largely responsible for the present style of aviation law in Australia, for "The use of lawyers and judges, for the safe conviction of pilots and engineers".
Facilitating aviation was never a consideration. Sadly, a large and influential part of the "industry" don't really support any real reform, because, like CASA , "they" "know" that industry participants ca't be trusted, and must be hog-tied had and foot by regulation ----- sadly part of the Australian way of thinking ---- the answer to all problems is more regulation.
As in: "They should do something about -----"
Toot-Toot..
TB’s in depth look at how we came to the present sorry legislative state has provoked some interesting commentary. Usually, I try to summarise the comment into a nutshell to keep down the word count; however some of it, stand alone says it all very neatly. One of our senior associates penned the following missive in response to a question circulated on an E-mail loop. I think it’s worth sharing.
When we put Parts 21-35 in place, they were "better" than the FARs, i.e.: lest restrictive, with a few innovations ---- the most obvious being Limited Category, with far greater freedom than the US equivalent.
And a great success.
Sadly, a combination of CASA and AWAL have messed Limited up, with the nonsense Part 132, which takes some hundreds of pages to say what a couple of short regulations used to say. This also made a nonsense of the Experimental Exhibition/Air Racing cat. of Part 21.---- and none of it ever had anything to do with air safety.
Part 21 was the foundation for the vast expansion of AUF/RAOz, and a huge increase in amateur building, once the restrictions of the old AABA was bypassed, as was monopoly control by SAAA.
Likewise, in the original Part 21, we had provision for industry certification in the Primary Category, to what would now be called a "consensus" standard, CASA quietly "repealed" this when nobody was looking, then along came LSA --- and we "adopted " it, largely because CASA could not be held responsible for the "standards" ---- "blame" somebody else". Put another way, we were years ahead of LSA, but CASA stonewalled it, and then pulled the plug by burying the repeal in a much bigger tranche of regulations.
Don't forget CASA has also screwed up the PIFR, so it is nothing like the original we put in place (which was more flexible than the basic FAA IFR) ---- sadly troglodytes in the industry are as much to blame as CASA for this backwards step. The AOPA V-P who gets 90% of the credit for the original PIFR, A.R.(Tony) Mitchell, must be spinning in his grave.
The NZ regulations are in may ways a better starting point than the FARs, because they are largely the FARs cleaned up, years of accumulated excrescences removed, but there are few things that we could do that are smarter than the NZ regs.
The core problem with our whole aviation suite is that it is not intended for the benefit of the aviation sector, it is, to quote a former very senior CAA/CASA lawyer, who is largely responsible for the present style of aviation law in Australia, for "The use of lawyers and judges, for the safe conviction of pilots and engineers".
Facilitating aviation was never a consideration. Sadly, a large and influential part of the "industry" don't really support any real reform, because, like CASA , "they" "know" that industry participants ca't be trusted, and must be hog-tied had and foot by regulation ----- sadly part of the Australian way of thinking ---- the answer to all problems is more regulation.
As in: "They should do something about -----"
Toot-Toot..