[Peetwo]

Via Oz Flying:

---

 

CASA extends Flight Rules Start Date
3 March 2020
Comments 0 Comments

CASA has extended the implementation date for nine new flight rules by nine months.
Originally due to commence on 25 March next year, the new rules will now not come into effect until 2 December 2021.

The CASRs impacted are:

• Part 91 General Operating and Flight Rules
  
  
• Part 103 Sport and Recreational Aircraft
  
  
• Part 105 Parachuting from an Aircraft
  
  
• Part 119 Certification and Management for AOC Holders
  
  
• Part 121 Larger Air Transport Aircraft
  
  
• Part 131 Manned Free Balloons
  
  
• Part 133 Rotorcraft Air Transport
  
  
• Part 135 Smaller Air Transport Aeroplanes
  
  
• Part 138 Aerial Work.
  

CASR Part 149 Approved Self-administering Aviation Organisations will remain unchanged with the end of the transition staying at 13 July 2022.

According to CASA, the extension is to give both the aviation industry and the regulator more time to get ready.

"We have taken the time to engage with industry through the Aviation Safety Advisory Panel and its consultative working groups," a CASA statement said.

"Some of the feedback from that process was the need for adequate time. We have listened and have extended the commencement date and are preparing the legislation to enable the change.

"Critical guidance material to support you will be available well ahead of commencement."

More information is on the CASA website.

---

"Some of the feedback from that process was the need for adequate time. We have listened and have extended the commencement date and are preparing the legislation to enable the change..."

Hmm...why do I get the feeling that there is more to this delay than meets the eye??

Ref: https://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-a...st10701833 & https://auntypru.com/forum/showthread.ph...7#pid11087

 

Lead Balloon

Back on topic...


For those who suggest “there is no statistical significance in [a] single event that contributes such a large fraction of the sample”, “events like these are stochastic until proven otherwise” and it’s not “appropriate to extrapolate accident stats like that”, I agree. There is that trite saying about lies, damn lies and statistics.


But if you’re going to criticise Dick for implying that there is some causal connection between the specific spate of recent fatalities and ‘something else’ - I note he only asked a question about what that ‘something else’ might be - you should be criticising the others that do precisely the same. For example, look at what CASA and ATSB did to justify the Community Service Flight kneejerk. Wrap your brain around this circular logic:



Let us not entertain the possibility that waiting for “sufficiently robust data” might show that “being prospective” was really just “a kneejerk”. And strange that they don’t apply the same logic to HCRPT operations in and out of aerodromes in G. Apparently we’re going to wait for the collision that kills a a 737 full of fare paying pax before acting.


It seems to me that about the only valid conclusion that can be drawn about the accident and incident rate in Australia is that a few decades and a few hundreds of millions of taxpayers’ dollars lazily sunk into the regulatory reform program have had little causally positive consequence for the accident and incident rate. The program has produced a few millionaires, so I suppose that’s a kind of silver lining.

It seems to me that some people involved in aviation spend a lot of time and money bringing about changes that have, on balance, been generally beneficial for aviation. It seems to me that other people involved in aviation spend a lot of time and money producing little that is beneficial for aviation.

---

Plus:

Vref+5

WRT to the comparison of the Ansett collapse to the current decline in Aviation, specifically the sacking of the crusty old engineers, have you tried to get hold of an inspector recently in the Melbourne office? Carmody et al aren’t replacing any inspectors who resigns, retires or walks out in disgust. And those who are left appear to be on sick leave, or seconded to other projects. Now taking months to get any applications through

---

& in reply:

Sunfish

Vref+5, doesn’t sound good. When TSHTF in an organisation, the scene is as you described. People leave and aren’t replaced, the rest are head down, trying not to get noticed. They know there is big trouble coming, well before senior management does.


The information I thought I saw - about CASA doing some IT based “transformation”, if true, is a desperate attempt to stave off organisational disaster. An IT solution to perceived problems is often proposed by managers trying to buy time and fix serious issues and it always fails.

The reason it fails is that if a business process is paper driven but “broken” then trying to computerise it just makes it worse. If CASA regulations are unclear now, just wait until a software architect tries to turn them into machine logic.

MTF...P2