Response 977598613

Back to Response listing

Personal information

2. Last name

Last name (Required)
Welling

5. If yes, please specify the name of your organisation.

If yes, please specify the name of your organisation
N/A

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
Ticked yes
some change/s required (please specify below)
no (please specify below)
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
some change/s required (please specify below)
Ticked no (please specify below)
not applicable
Comments
I agree with everything that’s written in the proposed text, except, I would not remove the 8 hour arbitrary ‘bottle to throttle’ rule. By removing the 8 hour rule, you’ve now rely totally on an individuals assessment of themselves to be fit or unfit to safely perform a duty. It’s a great deal open for interpretation now. Look at 6(b)..... under the influence....... to the extent that the crew member’sability to safely perform a duty is reduced........ If I have an alcoholic drink one hour prior to a duty my ability is reduce. If I have an alcoholic drink 4 hours before, my ability is reduced. 8 hours before....reduced. 12 hours before.... reduced. The effects of alcohol can reduce your ability to perform in some instances 48 hours later. I know people who can drink 6 beers in a sitting and you would not know. I know people ( like myself) who are on their ear after 2. This legislation would allow the fellow who can drink the 6 beers to self assess himself as fit. The point I make is the arbitrary 8 hours was a good guide. The 8 hour rule in combination with the “unfit - suffering the effects of” encompasses most undesirable situations regarding flight crew and psychoactive substances. I challenge you to provide an example of when you believe it to be acceptable to consume alcohol / or any other altering substance with less than 8 hours before a safety sensitive duty. Would you allow your family to fly as passengers with a crew member who had a drink 4 hours ago but reckons ‘he’s fine’? Removing the 8 hour rule does not improve safety. It blurs the edges of what’s acceptable. I’d recommend keeping it. In 24 years of professional flying it’s never been a problem. I imagine the press would have a field day if they caught wind of this.

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
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
Ticked yes
some change/s required (please specify below)
no (please specify below)
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
Ticked yes
some change/s required (please specify below)
no (please specify below)
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
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
Difficult to give solid feedback here as I have no access to statistical data associated with reports of conflict between Low level IFR aircraft and non-quadrantal VFR aircraft. In a country that is so vast with relatively light amounts of light aircraft traffic in comparison to other countries that utilise the ICAO standards and recommendations It would appear to unnecessarily penalize the freedom of VFR aircraft by reducing the arbitrary quadrantal altitude to 3000 feet. In my experience IFR flights below 5000 were rare. Maybe the odd short sector say between Echuca and Bendigo (40NM leg) or occasionally when restricted by freezing level in which there was no corresponding conflicting VFR traffic as they were all smart enough to stay in bed. To comment with any further relevance I would need to be in possession of the statistics relating to the percentage of actual IFR flights planned and conducted under 5000 AMSL. I would be surprised to discover that the percentage was high. There is not enough information provided here to accurately comment on from my perspective. There is no background on near misses / accidents / complaints. There is no data on where the possible conflicts are presenting themselves. From the face of it this looks overly and unnecessarily restrictive. I operate from an airport with high traffic of multiple disciplines: RAA, GA, IFR, Air ambulance helicopter, Fire bombers fixed and rotary, etc and I can see little advantage in this proposal.

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
some change/s required (please specify below)
Ticked 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
Most of the proposals are appropriate with a large amount of them acting as a clarification to existing concepts already. Removing the 8 hour alcohol rule is a red flag. I think compliance with legislation that is now subjective has huge issues. You’re asking a hot shot 22 year old male with a bank run in a chieftain the next morning to stop drinking at a point where he “feels” he’ll be fit to operate. Give him 8 hours!! At least his 22year old kidneys will give him a fighting chance of surviving the next couple of sectors! I’ve never known anyone (personally that is) who broke the 8hours but I’ve seen the odd hangover. You’re now going to remove the part that people actually complied with. In fact my first company I worked for stipulated 12hours alcohol free before duty in the Ops Manual. This was also no problem. I’d rethink that one!!

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)
no (please specify below)
Ticked 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
“Practical” safety.
Priority 2
Simplification of legislation.