Proposed changes to the general operating and flight rules - Part 91 of CASR (NPRM CD 1511OS-2)

Response 212030295

Back to Response listing

Personal information

2. Last name

Last name (Required)
Robinson

Carriage of documents

1. This proposal introduces new journey log requirements for international flights. (section 3.01 and 3.02 of the Part 91 MOS)

Please select one item
yes
some change/s required (please specify below)
no (please specify below)
Ticked not applicable

2. This proposal explicitly permits the carriage of documents electronically. (regulation 91.113 of CASR)

Please select one item
Ticked yes
some change/s required (please specify below)
no (please specify below)
not applicable

Firearms

1. This proposal removes the need for CASA approval for someone to carry firearms on aircraft - for flights not regulated for this purpose under the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004. (regulation 91.130 of CASR)

Please select one item
Ticked yes
some change/s required (please specify below)
no (please specify below)
not applicable

Crew members

1. This proposal creates a broader requirement for fitness for duty and removes the prescriptive eight-hour rule for alcohol consumption. (regulation 91.215 of CASR)

Comments
Why always strict liability?

2. This proposal broadens the requirement for cabin crew, to include non-air transport flights carrying 20 or more passengers. (regulation 91.1460 of CASR)

Please select one item
yes
some change/s required (please specify below)
no (please specify below)
Ticked not applicable
Comments
What evidence is there to show that this would increase safety?

3. This proposal broadens the requirement for passengers to comply with cabin crew safety instructions. (regulation 91.790 of CASR)

Please select one item
yes
some change/s required (please specify below)
Ticked no (please specify below)
not applicable
Comments
Once again why strict liability. Are there any problems with the current regulations? Have any incidents occurred where this would have been of benefit. Keeping in mind a passenger is unlikely to have any knowledge of these rules.

Portable Electronic Devices (PEDs)

1. This proposal removes the prescriptive list of permitted portable electronic devices (PEDs) on flights. (regulation 91.145 of CASR)

Please select one item
yes
some change/s required (please specify below)
Ticked no (please specify below)
not applicable
Comments
A PIC isn't going to exercise discretion when there is the chance they'll be punished for it. Not everyone is an expert on electronics, their functions and how they could affect an aircraft. Once again a pilot is not a LAME or a radio technician. This will only lead to more restrictions because of the liability attached.

2. This proposal restricts crew members from operating PEDs where that would be distracting to the performance of their duties. (regulation 91.150 of CASR)

Please select one item
yes
some change/s required (please specify below)
Ticked no (please specify below)
not applicable
Comments
Who is going to enforce this?

Equipment

1. This proposal relaxes oxygen requirements for non-air transport operations. (Division 30.9 of the Part 91 MOS)

Please select one item
Ticked yes
some change/s required (please specify below)
no (please specify below)
not applicable

2. This proposal expands a requirement to preserve flight recordings (and recorders) after an immediately reportable matter while reducing the amount of time these need to be retained. (regulation 91.724 of CASR)

Please select one item
yes
some change/s required (please specify below)
no (please specify below)
Ticked not applicable

3. This proposal consolidates all the rules for the Minimum Equipment List (MEL) in one place and expands who can approve the MEL. (regulation 91.1680 to 91.1705 of CASR and sections 33.01 to 33.09 of the Part 91 MOS)

Please select one item
yes
some change/s required (please specify below)
no (please specify below)
Ticked not applicable

Take-off and landing

1. This proposal introduces an approach ban for Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) flights under certain circumstances. (section 17.07 of the Part 91 MOS)

Please select one item
yes
some change/s required (please specify below)
no (please specify below)
Ticked not applicable

2. This proposal changes the existing low visibility take off and approach exemptions to an approval. (regulation 91.425 of CASR)

Please select one item
yes
some change/s required (please specify below)
no (please specify below)
Ticked not applicable

Flight requirements

1. This proposal extends the ability for pilots not operating under an AOC or other certificate to use night vision imaging systems (NVIS) under certain conditions. (section 5.02 of the Part 91 MOS )

Please select one item
yes
some change/s required (please specify below)
no (please specify below)
Ticked not applicable

2. This proposal introduces the ability for night Visual Flight Rules (VFR) flights to use IFR lowest safe altitudes. (regulation 91.395 of CASR)

Please select one item
yes
some change/s required (please specify below)
Ticked no (please specify below)
not applicable
Comments
So VFR pilots will have to maintain IFR documents?

3. This proposal introduces a requirement to comply with Air Defence Identification Zones (ADIZ) procedures. (regulation 91.362 of CASR)

Please select one item
yes
some change/s required (please specify below)
Ticked no (please specify below)
not applicable
Comments
What about an emergency?

4. This proposal creates a requirement to comply with aircraft interception procedures. (section 20.05 of the Part 91 MOS)

Please select one item
yes
some change/s required (please specify below)
no (please specify below)
Ticked not applicable

5. This proposal reduces the altitude above which a VFR aircraft must (where practicable) use VFR cruising levels from 5000 ft to 3000 ft AMSL (above mean sea level). (section 13.04 of the Part 91 MOS)

Please select one item
yes
some change/s required (please specify below)
Ticked no (please specify below)
not applicable
Comments
What evidence is there that this will increase safety?

Animals

1. This proposal significantly simplifies the rules for the carriage of animals in the aircraft cabin. (regulation 91.200 of CASR)

Please select one item
yes
some change/s required (please specify below)
no (please specify below)
Ticked not applicable

General response

1. Are the proposed changes to the general operating flight rules appropriate and can they be complied with by industry without undue burden?

Please select one item
yes
some change/s required (please specify below)
Ticked no (please specify below)
not applicable
Comments
Some seem encouraging. Others counter productive. No evidence supplied to support tightening of regulations. The incorporation of strict liability into most is certainly not encouraging more flexibility and discretion.

2. One of the aims was to primarily consolidate the current rules and carry over existing regulatory requirements. If you exclude the changes listed in the Summary of Proposed Changes, has this been achieved?

Please select one item
yes
some change/s required (please specify below)
Ticked no (please specify below)
not applicable
Comments
Consolidation and compliance with ICAO? Why not adopt ICAO standards then?

3. Are there any significant aviation safety risks which have not been addressed in the Part 91 of CASR draft regulations and MOS?

Please select one item
yes (please specify below)
some change/s required (please specify below)
Ticked no
not applicable