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

Response 68865980

Back to Response listing

Personal information

2. Last name

Last name (Required)
Flanagan

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
yes
some change/s required (please specify below)
no (please specify below)
Ticked 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
Comments
I assume that if the pilot on command is the owner of the firearm, then they can carry the weapon on private flights? If this is the intent then that is a sensible change.

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

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
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
yes
some change/s required (please specify below)
Ticked no (please specify below)
not applicable
Comments
Who decides if it has distracted the pilot from their duties? This is a stupid rule as pilots have to operate EFB equipment now. They use them at most stages of flight and must access them for safety reasons, e.g runway diagrams, frequency info etc etc. If you want to make this a "dont watch movies while you are flying rule" then you must be more specific.

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
yes
Ticked some change/s required (please specify below)
no (please specify below)
not applicable
Comments
CASA fee's need to be minimal if you want to approve MEL extensions and changes. By minimal I mean not over $50. To many CASA fees are now excessive Redacted text In the MOS 33.02 talks about applying the MEL the day it is entered into the aircraft log. It should be the day of the next flight. What is the point of applying the MEL the day the aircraft goes U/S. The aircraft might sit there for several days before its next flight. The maintenance org or the operator may have sent the part for repair and it may take several weeks to return (this is common now with OEM's). The MEL should be applied "Prior to next Flight"

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)

Comments
I am not qualified to answer.

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
Comments
Not qualified to answer.

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
Comments
Not qualified to answer

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)
no (please specify below)
Ticked 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
yes
some change/s required (please specify below)
Ticked no (please specify below)
not applicable
Comments
I don't believe this should be a strict liability offence. The information is often difficult to understand as to when ADIZ are active or not. Mistakes happen and to have 50 penalty points applied for a simple mistake is not right. All pilots try to be aware and stay away from these zones when required.

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

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
Ticked yes
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
See previous comments

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
Ticked yes (please specify below)
some change/s required (please specify below)
no
not applicable
Comments
It is all still too complicated. You need to simplify further the rules and regulation. The legal language and jumping around between regs is too hard to understand. CASA in general has spent years building up regulations and red tape to the point where most pilots have no idea about the regulations and they cant be bothered trying to understand them. They "run the gauntlet" and hope they never have an issue. We are all therefore far less safe than we used to be, this means of course CASA is failing in its safety mandate and the industry as a whole is failing apart because of it. You say you are trying to change but it is not very evident and aviation in this country continues to decline.