turboplanner

Try going and stabbing or bludgeoning 35 people to death.It's the only good thing Little Johnny ever did.

The gun laws worked.[/Quote]Only insofar as removing most military assault rifles; the murder rate is pretty much on a very slight decline, with the method changing to knives, and worse still, bludgeoning.

Maybe the last pilot left the keys in it :) it one of those things no matter want rule you bring in you will never stop it ,people even steal arm tanks, boats,cars ,trucks ,wheel chairs for a joy ride you see it on the news at south Brisbane . At the end of the day someone has to have access to it so how do you brain scan them to do the right thing .

Looks like the puppeteer has lifted his strings and left the building with his "characters" anyway.

That is a very strong house to keep the cessna citation out, some thing doesn't seem right.

There's no similarity of intent. . How the general public view it is their concern. They believe what the hystericals and sensation peddlers tell them. Single engine fighters flying over built up areas are a risk all the time, as they are instructed to eject if the thing malfunctions. Nev

We already get that with our railway Cat I medical exams. The whole 'do you feel suicidal?' etc etc...Yet we've had one successful and several attempts at it in the last couple of years in one depot...So no matter how good the psych profiles are, no amount of security cards or medical histories will prevent every possibility, every time.IIRC, we had a serving Qantas line pilot do something similar in a bug-smasher off Ballina a year or two ago, an Air Botswana pilot do it, the Germanwings Effo 2 years ago. This is only such big news because of the novelty of it - "Non-pilot baggage handler steals commercial airliner....". Were he to have done the same thing in a Pitts Special, we would be lucky to have heard of it in Australia.

I don't mean to trivialise the event or its' repercussions - far from it - as an employees mental health is arguably more important than their physical health in both the flying, and railway, environments given the safety-critical nature of both. But I don't really see how this can have been prevented.

If there is a reaction to it, in the gun debate, similar incidents had occurred to the ones you mention, and it became clear that just questioning the person didn't work; they were usually clever enough to fake it. When I told my local doctor, he said "Send the investigators to me; I can tell them immediately whether the person in OK; if he's not, he'll have been like it from the time he was seven, and I only have to go through in incidents in his file."

But did he have an ASIC ? If it happened in Australia yes he would have an ASIC, would the result be any different ? No. ASIC = useless . If anyone can put forward a senario were an ASIC would work let's hear it.

It does look as if someone is managing a string of puppets.

Didn't that plane that crashed at Essendon do a mayday?I wonder why he thought it would have helped.

.

I didn’t mention Engine Failure After Take Off, to save confusion with an engine failure on take off or on final. Here you often don’t get the 8 seconds to make the call, and people are usually watching.

Oops!

I often start sentences with So, And and But.. not to mention bug#er and worse.Don't look for any improvement, I'm too old to change.

Spelling is much the same - a few books to study, and you'll be a star.

We went through an appalling period in the 1970s where the education clique figured if the other person could understand more or less what you wrote, who cares; unfortunately for a generation of Australians, employers cared.

Things have changed; this is last week's spelling homework for Grade 1 in Victoria (6/7 year olds):

glamourous

glucose

flexibility

flabbergasted

fluorescent

asleep

beautiful

before

between

bought

2 - the old adage of Aviate Navigate Communicate is life saving advice - my priorities will always be (1) get the aircraft on the ground in a manner that gives me the best chance of survival - PLB ON immediately, check where I'm going to put 'er down, and concentrate on that - if I get comfortable enough to talk to someone, a mayday call could be a life saver too - forget about circuit legs, just concentrate on AIRSPEED and keeping the best glide going - better high than low, learn to sideslip for rapid height loss if too high, maybe even practice a ground loop or two...

Aviate Navigate Communicate is a current piece of wisdom, and even more important with so many RA people dropping into a stall after an engine failure, however this is for a SEQUENCE of actions, and the OP question was "what phrase to you use?"

Quite a few pilots have died with their PLBs inactive and months/years later hikers have found a tibia and a tattered aircraft frame.

If you are at 1000 feet and the engine quits, and if your glide descent is 700 feet per second, it will take about 86 seconds to touchdown. and your reaction time is 2 seconds, another 2 seconds for the "aviate" to nose down and trim trim for glide, and another 2 seconds for the "Navigate" to pick an area where you won't get killed, you then have 80 seconds to "Communicate" and try to get the engine started, all the while eyeing that landing spot and switching to a better one of available.

A formal Mayday call takes around 7 to 8 seconds, so there's plenty of time to call in the above sequence, which is why it's part of the forced landing drill pilots are taught and checked on during a BFR.

These days everyone who flies, whether owning their own aircraft, or just hiring, can afford a PLB, but there have been fatalities where the PLB was in the luggage compartment, pilot's bag, fixed in the aircraft but not activated etc.

However in BP's case it appears to be readily able to be activated in flight, and if it can be activated early, say in conjunction with the Navigate phase, that's going to tell AMSA in Canberra that a beacon has been activated, and the precise location, but it can't tell them how many POB, the nature of the problem (which could be about to extend for an hour or more) etc.

Every time I've been checked for a forced landing, in GA or RA it seems to be from 1500 feet and a simulated engine failure; in real life there could be a fire in the engine compartment, where fire services would be handy if you could make an airfield or road, it could be that you've just about exhausted your fuel supplies and are likely to have the classic FL any minute, or it could be a million other things, and in particular weather related.

If you're cruising along a valley in the sunshine and start to have a medical event, you can call a Mayday and have a medical response team tasked along with the usual police and fire.

If you are call a Mayday and there's no response, and I'm flying nearby, within seconds I'll be calling a Mayday relay, and likely will be circling your position to guide rescue vehicles in before you run out of blood.

There's a case which you can find on ATSB where a pilot was trapped by cloud in a valley in southern NSW he was below line of sight with ATC but an airliner picked up his mayday call and started circling overhead above the cloud. The airline pilot couldn't see him, and he couldn't see the airliner, but ATC got the maps out and checked the valley altitudes vs the cloud base, and were able to instruct the airliner co pilot to guide the Mayday aircraft down a valley, across into another set of valleys, and then down towards the coast.

Your survival percentages go way up with radio.

oh yeah - and stop starting sentences with "So"........

Hey,So I'm a student pilot learning to get my certificate and I fly at an un-controlled airfield where we use the radio to broadcast positions e.g base, rolling etc. My question is, lets say you have an engine failure in the circuit, what phrase would you use?? MAYDAY MAYDAY MAYDAY ?? or PAN PAN PAN. or would yhou just say Traffic [location] engine failure?

 

thanks,

 

Riley

What intrigues me is that there seems to be no great concern at losing around 13 Self Administration freedoms.

I wouldn’t call these bodies self administering any more, which then begs the question of why pay fees to a body which is being told what to do by CASA. Why not eliminate the ASAOs and be administered directly by CASA without these extra conditions and regulations?

What is very interesting in your comment -- is when one writes those manuals it is so surprising how real thoughts leak through with the used of words.What I have found -- how aggression shows trough stand out like one never knows what, so it most likely will be there.

KP

Yes,17 disgusting and unnecessary threats in Aust Part 149:

"A person commits an offence of strict liability if....."

 

37% of the 46 regulations have these threats, which in themselves aren't even regulations, they are just statements/threats.

Part 149 New Zealand - 18 regulations.Part 149 Australia - 46 regulations, plus Manual of Standards not yet in existence which will have many more rules.

Part 149 USA - no such thing.

These regulations are addressing the protection of Australian taxpayers under Australian law, so there's no point in making a country vs country comparison, unless you want to change Australian law - then you have to address all Australian activities from coking sausages outside Bunnings to running the AFL.

By the time the ASAO's add the regulations they need to add, there'll be a lot more than 46 (Of course many of those could be their base of existing laws, adjusted for CASA approval in line with the Part 149 clauses.

Turbs I've always advised people to belong to AOPA. They can't ignore the numbers and many problems are common across the whole scene. Being the "New GA" aspirationally, doesn't help but whether it is or isn't is yet to unfold. I'm a sceptic and have so indicated. any time the subject comes up. Nev

The better it's done, and more facts the more effective. I wonder what "OUR Organisation " Thinks. They wouldn't be game to be so proactive. That's probably where we are at there. Pity I'm now not with AOPA.. Nev

Petition your local member and all the senators in your state highlighting issues such as those highlighted here and ask theme to move a disallowance motion. "Its not fair" wont work

The bodies affected include:

Australian Ballooning Federation (ABF)

Australian Parachute Federation (APF)

Australian Skydiving Association (ASA)

Australian Sport Rotorcraft Association (ASRA)

Australian Warbirds Association Limited (AWAL)

Gliding Federation of Australia (GFA)

Hang Gliding Federation of Australia (HGFA)

Model Aircraft Association of Australia (MAAA)

Recreational Aviation Australia (RA-Aus)

Sport Aircraft Association of Australia (SAAA)

Comments on:

Civil Aviation Legislation Amendment (Part 149) Regulations 2018

Disclaimer:

I am not a lawyer, and none of the following is reliable legal advice; If you want to know where you stand, get a copy of this legislation, and a copy of the Recreational Aviation Australia Limited Constitution and applicable documents to this legislation, and go see a specialist lawyer.

These comments follow a quick skim of he legislation document, and are intended just for discussion, not as reference material, and may be varied after this date.

Link to the Regulations: Civil Aviation Legislation Amendment (Part 149) Regulations 2018

The link shows the regulations have been through both Houses of Parliament, and have been signed off by the Governor-General, becoming law on July 14, 2018.

The Austlii Federal Register of Legislation lists it as "In Force - Latest version - F2018L010030. On this basis, I'm leaving the effective date at July 14 in the comments on this post, HOWEVER, Please note Jim's comments #13. I don't have any reason to doubt him, so it could well be that the effective date moves out. Certainly if I was in the Senate I would be asking for the regulations to be torn up and a fresh start made.

Comments (Clauses from the document are in Italics)

In the draft stage these were known as CASA Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 Part 149, Part 149 fitting neatly on the end of the CASRs.

It would be interesting to know why these regulations were separated from their logical place.

As we know, in the mid 1980s, State and Federal governments became concerned about the potential cost to taxpayers of multiple, and large, public liability claims, saw themselves as soft target and began offloading liabilities. By far the most successful example of this was the State road authorities handing over registration of motor vehicles to motor vehicle dealers. Victoria closed down its Department of Labour and Industry almost overnight and stopped factory inspections, and the issuing of “tickets” for cranes, chains and machinery. Many sporting bodies no longer had legislation to comply with, so they established their own.

However, by 1998 the State and Federal Ministers set out to address the rump of people who were not insuring themselves, or thought Industry standards and codes were “optional”, and we saw a rash of “Safety” legislation such as the Victoria’s Road Safety (Vehicles) Regulations 1999, which made some key Codes of Practice mandatory, and set penalties for non-compliance,

It could be coincidence, but I suspect the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 Part 149 were intended to be part of that general tightening up of loose cannons, and it seems to read that way.

Many members of this forum have complained about being subjected to more and more regulations, and I’ve kept reminding them that they were only just discovering the old regulations they should have been complying with all along.

This is the big change; these are new regulations, and there will be a lot of them after the ASAO have realized their obligations and set to work catching up to July 14.

That’s the date this legislation applies from, and prior to that date, your ASAO should have provided you with notification, and all the documents required by CASA.

If the ASAO has failed to do this make a note of the date, particularly if you are involved in an accident or incident from July 14 until you are notified of the rules you have to follow. That may save you a lot of money. While ignorance of the law is not excuse, it helps if a law wasn’t in place when the accident occurred.

Part 149 Approved Self Administering Aviation Organisations

When governments set out to off load liability, the cleanest way to do this is to let industry and/or people run their own affairs, assume all risks and make their own codes of practice, benchmark standard and rules, to manage those risks, and assist Courts in deciding whether safe standards were being practiced when an accident occurred.

Sometimes governments accidently re-assume risk; for example there is a world of difference between the word “Approved” which is used in this legislation and “Recognised” which is an arms length word when referring to a Self Administering body.

149.010

CASA may issue a Manual of Standards for this Part

(a) Required to be prescribed by the Part 149 Manual of Standards

(b) Necessary of convenient to be prescribed for carrying out of giving effect to this Part.

If CASA do issue a Manual of standards, then what is the purpose of a Self Administering Organisation. Their Manual effectively imposes Government regulation all the way down to the Participants, so the government reassumes the risk

149.085

(b) The ASAO must comply with any direction given to the ASAO, or obligation imposed on the ASAO, by CASA under these regulations.

Re-assumption of risk – effectively the directives and obligations are being imposed on members by the government body; the ASAO is not self- administering. Any error, confusion inadequacy etc. opens the government up to being a defendant.

149.110

(1) A change to an ASAO’s exposition must be approved by CASA under regulation 149.115 before the change is made.

Re-assumption of risk; the ASAO is prevented from self-administering, becoming a superfluous cost to members.

149.120

(1) If CASA is satisfied that it is necessary in the interests of aviation safety, CASA may, by written notice given to an ASAO, direct the ASAO to change the ASAO’s exposition.

Re-assumption of risk; the ASAO is prevented from self-administering.

(2) CASA may, by written notice given to an ASAO, direct the ASAO to remove any of the key personnel of the ASAO from the person’s position. [subject to some CASA definitions]

Re-assumption of risk; the ASAO is prevented from self-administering.

149.195

Organisation and Personnel

Re-assumption of risk; the ASAO is prevented from self-administering.

CASA is reserving the right to dictate the number and type of personnel.

149.205

Re-assumption of risk; the ASAO is prevented from self-administering.

CASA is dictating qualifications, but not setting a minimum standard.

149.210

Re-assumption of risk; the ASAO is prevented from self-administering.

CASA is dictating qualifications, but not setting a minimum standard.

149.270

Re-assumption of risk; the ASAO is prevented from self-administering.

CASA is dictating the nature of an SMS, and so is legally responsible for any mistakes.

149.275

Re-assumption of risk; the ASAO is prevented from self-administering.

149.280

Re-assumption of risk; the ASAO is prevented from self-administering.

149.285

Re-assumption of risk; the ASAO is prevented from self-administering.

149.290

Re-assumption of risk; the ASAO is prevented from self-administering.

The safer alternative, is some direction is being suggested, is to provide a set of Model Rules, which are not obligatory. This way, the government is responsible for every mistake.

SUB PART 149F – Expositions

(a)

(i) For each of the ASAO’s key personnel, the following information:

(e) A description of the ASAO’s Safety Management System required by regulation 149.270

(f) A description of the ASAO’s Audit and Surveillance system required by regulation 149.275

(g) the ASAO’s aviation administration and enforcement rules

You’ll recall the howling down of Ed Herring when he tried to employ a person with SMS experience, to write a fully comprehensive SMS, and the subsequent SMS produced by RAA.

(f) is really the compliance and enforcement policy which in my opinion threw all the legal responsibilities onto the CFIs for the students they signed off.

Robust and Survivable policies and systems for (e), (f) and (g) needed to have been communicated to all members before July 14, so that members could be complying with them on July 14, when the first accidents and incidents under the new regulations could have been occurring.

149.345

An ASAO must not contravene a provision of the ASAO’s exposition

This would be a reasonable example of a requirement on an ASAO (leaving out any conditions which CASA may have “required”). The way it reads is that the ASAO writes it’s exposition, then is required by law to live by it.

149.400

(1) An ASAO must not reject an application by a person for an authorization to undertake an activity administered by the ASAO on grounds other than the eligibility criteria set out in the ASAO’s aviation administration and enforcement rules.

Where this conflicts with the ASAO’s Constitution, Special/Emergency meetings should have been held to ensure no conflict by July 14, or an urgent bulletin of intent to change should have been advised to members.

The ASAO by now needs to have considered, and have rules in place for eligibility, including assessment of members with disabilities etc. which may not prevent them from flying.

GENERAL

A lot of Strict Liability penalty clauses for the ASAO.

The standard of personnel required may result in a much higher salary bill.

Exposition, or an ASAO means:

(a) The set of documents approved by CASA under regulation 149.080 in relation to the ASAO, or:

(b) If the set of documents is changed under regulation 149.115 or 149.120, or in accordance with the process mentioned in paragraph 149.340 (i) – the set of documents as changed.

Hopefully all ASAO members have been quiet over the last few days reading their new ASAO documents and rules.

From the members point of view, if the government has re-assumed legal liability in some clauses, that gives the member a powerful fellow defendant in the case of an accident, but a likely outcome is confusion.

I’m not quite sure just how these regulations got through both houses of parliament, but no doubt there were extended periods of consultation where members could have made submissions, and local members of both houses could have been contacted.

And remember, this is just my take on the new regulations; you are entitled to an entirely different view.

I guess before you even take that risk path, you have to learn how to fly and get a licence/certificate.

Given that Part 149 is predicated on Parts 103 and 105 where the f--- are they? - lost in the bowels of CASA's interminable regulatory development process?.The Senate should chuck this piece of crap out until they see ALL of the relevant legislation.

The explanatory statement omits the international requirement (and local I think) for the rules of evidence to be applied in any disciplinary procedure.

 

Also the use of disciplinary procedures applicable to members of organisations (and thus the denial of the most basic rules of evidence that would be applicable in a properly constituted court) rather than properly constituted courts is a misuse of the legislation constituting the organisations.

 

If members of organisations were refugees, the human rights lobby would be all over this.

It is all there.

I'm working through it clause by clause, and so far on several clauses CASA appears to have re-assumed liability; effectively the self administering organisation is not self administering at all, CASA are dictating how things should be run; in other words, on those subjects they would be just as well off doing away with the SAO - a shot directly into the foot.

I'm not trolling....If you want to fly across Bass Straight safely buy a bloody JET.I wouldn't fly across in a single engine Aircraft as long as my freckle points South.

Why ask the question if you ain't got the money to purchase an Aircraft fit for the job and if not aren't prepared to take the risk in a singe engine Aircraft ?