Part 91

[Guest ozzie]

I haven't read Part 91. Have you? Must be pretty interesting but probably only to the peckerheads that wrote it. I stumbled across AOPAs response to it over at that other site and got to about page 5 or 6 before a realised that it continued well into next week and promptly lost interest.

 

Seems to be a lot of stuff about us all being criminals before, during and after the acts of committing aviation i think. If anyone gets to the last page can they tell me how the story ends.

 

http://www.aopa.com.au/assets/118/AOPA_Response_Part_91_Consultation_Draft_13MAY11.pdf

 

Ozzie

 

 

[Guest davidh10]

I did start, bit it runs to several hundred pages, so haven't got very far. Too many other priorities.

 

There was certainly no ability to respond in the time given, without a full time effort.

 

 

[Bryon]

I read it, I still dont understand it

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

Gee you're no help. Maybe i should just wait for the movie to be released then.

 

 

[farri]

Ozzie, I just love your term.......Peckerheads!!!!

 

Frank.

 

 

[facthunter]

It probably means SFB's. Nev..

 

 

[farri]

I can think of 3 ways it can be taken!!!

 

 

[Guest davidh10]

It's an American colloquial term...

 

 

[Yenn]

Some time ago I posted somewhere on this site a recommendation to look at Part 91 and to respond. It is too late now and as all the offences they mention are "strict liability", plus the fines are horrific. The attitude of finding it too hard to understand and doing nothing is just what CASA lawyers want. If it goes ahead, because too few people objected we could all be in deep trouble. CASA did reply to my response with a poorly worded explanation of what "strict liability" meant, but I still don't understand, except that it is not good for us. It appears to turn CASA into policeman, judge and jury.

 

 

[Guest Crezzi]

Some time ago I posted somewhere on this site a recommendation to look at Part 91 and to respond. It is too late now and as all the offences they mention are "strict liability", plus the fines are horrific. The attitude of finding it too hard to understand and doing nothing is just what CASA lawyers want. If it goes ahead, because too few people objected we could all be in deep trouble. CASA did reply to my response with a poorly worded explanation of what "strict liability" meant, but I still don't understand, except that it is not good for us. It appears to turn CASA into policeman, judge and jury.

I'm not a lawyer but, as I understand it, "strict liability" means that effectively CASA only have to prove that you committed the offence - not that you knew it was illegal or did it intentionally. And you are quite right Yenn - Part 91 is definitely not good news.

 

Cheers

 

John

 

 

[djpacro]

Strict Liability - explained in context of Australian aviation:

 

Fortunately AOPA have responded comprehensively. I submitted some of my own comments - there is some good stuff in there and it is quite easy to understand especially compared to the current rules however it is all very prescriptive and draconian. My guess is that it will never happen (I like to remain optimistic).

 

Too late to do anything about it for this round now anyway so just keep flying.

 



 

 

[kaz3g]

Strict Liability - explained in context of Australian aviation:Fortunately AOPA have responded comprehensively. I submitted some of my own comments - there is some good stuff in there and it is quite easy to understand especially compared to the current rules however it is all very prescriptive and draconian. My guess is that it will never happen (I like to remain optimistic).

Too late to do anything about it for this round now anyway so just keep flying.

 



I also made a submission and included my thoughts on the use of strict liability offences as opposed to including the usual element of intention. My effort focused on just a few of the proposals that appeared to me, at least, to be almost nonsensical in their construction and effect (eg mandated fuel reserve now becomes ballast because it is an offence to use it under the current proposal... how does that promote safety?).

 

The AOPA submission was extremely well researched and encompassed the whole of part 91 and I recommend people do read it and consider making their own comments because I don't think CASA will be seeking GIC approval just yet.

 

Remember also that the Senate Estimates Committee is currently grilling CASA and ASA on a number of issues including the cost of regulation on industry and, for once, the senators seem particularly well informed.

 

kaz