Response 292387377

Back to Response listing

Personal information

2. Last name

Last name (Required)
Shepherd

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)

Please select one item
yes
Ticked some change/s required (please specify below)
no (please specify below)
not applicable
Comments
I think the more generalised definition is a great step away from prescriptive limits. Potentially putting some guidance for alcohol consumption or use of particular over the counter medications into the MoS might ensure awareness of their effects is properly understood. This might also be served by a detailed definition of fitness for flying in the definitions section. Overall, this rule making is a step in the right direction.

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

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

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

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
Ticked yes
some change/s required (please specify below)
no (please specify below)
not applicable

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
Ticked yes
some change/s required (please specify below)
no (please specify below)
not applicable

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
Ticked yes
some change/s required (please specify below)
no (please specify below)
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
Ticked yes
some change/s required (please specify below)
no (please specify below)
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
Ticked yes
some change/s required (please specify below)
no (please specify below)
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)
Ticked no (please specify below)
not applicable
Comments
If the intent of this rule making is to permit NVIS operations for other than an approved activity (Law enforcement, EMS, SAR, Fire Fighting, etc) then I hold serious and unwavering objections. NVIS operations rely to a certain extant on the absence of other traffic below LSALT. To permit widespread NVIS use in uncontrolled airspace increases the risk of aircraft collisions particularly as aircraft may not be using external lighting. An example might be the use of NVIS by television aircraft operating near a scene being serviced by a HEMS aircraft. This is already a risk experienced by day that becomes unmanageable at night. The ability to see and avoid other aircraft on NVIS is more difficult on NVIS and this risk is mitigated to some extent by the lack of additional aircraft traffic operating in the NVIS environment.

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
Ticked yes
some change/s required (please specify below)
no (please specify below)
not applicable

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

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

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

Please select one item
Ticked yes
some change/s required (please specify below)
no (please specify below)
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
This rule making seems like a good idea on paper but is a poor idea in practice for the sole reason of increasing the difficulty for VFR traffic to maintain VMC. An example is a VFR flight planned to fly over undulating terrain with a ridge at 2500'AMSL. The ridge is populated so overflight must occur not below 3500'AMSL. The aircraft is heading west. Under this rule change the aircraft is permitted to overfly the ridge at 3500'AMSL but as soon as it is beyond the ridge the aircraft MUST descend to contour terrain or initiate a climb to 4500'AMSL as long as VMC can be maintained. At 4500'AMSL this puts the aircraft above the IFR LSALT. Further to plan this flight the weather must be such that the cloud base is not below 5500'AMSL or such that the flight contours terrain to maintain exactly 1000'AHO. This rule will increase VFR traffic above LSALT or force more traffic to contour at lower levels. For the geography of Australia the 5000' limit is far more practical to ensure VMC flight is achieved while avoiding IFR flight, improving terrain avoidance and reducing pilot workload therefore permitting a better lookout and listen out. The current 5000'AMSL limit for compliance with VFR cruising levels should be maintained.

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
Ticked yes
some change/s required (please specify below)
no (please specify below)
not applicable

Emergency simulation restrictions

1. This proposal restricts the simulation of certain emergencies, predominantly, in Instrument Meteorological Conditions (IMC) or at night. (regulation 91.570 to 91.610 of CASR)

Please select one item
yes
Ticked some change/s required (please specify below)
no (please specify below)
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
Ticked some change/s required (please specify below)
no (please specify below)
not applicable
Comments
There are a couple of areas I have identified above that require attention however for the most part the work completed here is highly commendable. Part 91 and the associated MoS are a profound improvement on the current suite of regulations.

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
Ticked yes
some change/s required (please specify below)
no (please specify below)
not applicable

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)
no
Ticked not applicable

Your priorities

1. When you reflect on the feedback you have provided throughout this consultation, what are the three matters you consider most important?

Priority 1
Thoughtful incorporation of NVIS operations into Part 91
Priority 2
VFR Cruising Levels
Priority 3
ME rotorcraft simulated engine failures