Response 447750434

Back to Response listing

Personal information

2. Last name

Last name (Required)
Ball

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
yes
Ticked some change/s required (please specify below)
no (please specify below)
not applicable
Comments
Consent should lie solely with the pilot in command. I do not believe that "strict liability" should apply to aviation law, as there are many variables and factors that can effect operations.

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
"strict liability" should not apply!

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
Ticked yes
some change/s required (please specify below)
no (please specify below)
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
yes
Ticked some change/s required (please specify below)
no (please specify below)
not applicable
Comments
"strict liability" should not apply!

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
Ticked some change/s required (please specify below)
no (please specify below)
not applicable
Comments
"strict liability" should not apply. Pilots should not be required to also be electronics specialists. It may be that a pilot believes the device will not effect the aircraft operations, but in flight it becomes evident that it does, whereupon the pilot can have the device turned off. However, if strict liability applies the pilot has no option but to disallow operation of any device "just in case". This approach would defeat the whole purpose of the legislation.

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
Ticked some change/s required (please specify below)
no (please specify below)
not applicable
Comments
Once again, "strict liability" should not apply. There may be a good reason for operation of the device by the crew member. The pilot in command should oversee 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
yes
some change/s required (please specify below)
no (please specify below)
Ticked 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
Ticked some change/s required (please specify below)
no (please specify below)
not applicable
Comments
"strict liability" should not apply!

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
Ticked some change/s required (please specify below)
no (please specify below)
not applicable
Comments
"strict liability" should not apply! Is there specific criteria which determines 'low visibility', or is it pilot judgement?

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
Ticked some change/s required (please specify below)
no (please specify below)
not applicable
Comments
"Strict liability" should not apply!

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
Ticked some change/s required (please specify below)
no (please specify below)
not applicable
Comments
Again, strict liability should not apply. We are talking now about navigation accuracy and/or situational awareness, which can be effected by a number of factors, including plain old 'pilot error'.

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)
Ticked no (please specify below)
not applicable
Comments
Need to specify that the intercepting aircraft has sufficient authority to intercept!

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
Lowering the level to 3000 feet would unduly restrict recreational flying, and remove flexibility. This would be particularly evident on a flight which was not a travel flight, but merely a sight-seeing local area flight. Having to repeatedly alter altitude by 1000ft would place a fuel and maintenance burden on aircraft, and reduce safety as the pilot would be repeatedly transiting the other altitudes creating potential for conflict.

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
Ticked some change/s required (please specify below)
no (please specify below)
not applicable
Comments
Strict liability should not apply!

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
Refer to previous comments. It is impossible for the law-makers to foresee every eventuality, and pilots must act as they deem necessary. Therefore, the concept of strict liability is completely inappropriate.

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
Ticked some change/s required (please specify below)
no (please specify below)
not applicable
Comments
The aviation industry in Australia is grossly over regulated, particularly in regard to General Aviation. It may be OK for an airline to employ lawyers etc to understand and comply with all the legislation presented, but as a private individual who operates a small aircraft for my own recreation, it is extremely onerous. This situation is exacerbated by the application of "strict liability", which effectively removes any defence of reasonableness. It seems that CASA is determined to drive private operators out of the sky, but we pay taxes too, and ultimately their wages.

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
Ticked yes (please specify below)
some change/s required (please specify below)
no
not applicable
Comments
The safety risk of small operators being forced to 'cut corners' in order to meet the financial burden of operating under the load of legislation and requirements introduced by CASA.

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
Removal of Strict Liabilty from aviation legislation
Priority 2
Being able to fly without unnecessary finacial impost
Priority 3
Removing from officialdom the notion that all pilots, particularly private ones, are dangerous criminals who must be controlled with an iron rod.