Part149 and Part103

[Keith Page]

 

KP

 

 

[Nobody]

I am not exactly sure what you mean Keith when you say that "Part 149 and part 103 are of an international Civil Aviation Organization Standard. These standards they are recognised worldwide"

 

 

 

The numbers are really just like a "table of contents", but the words insite do change between each country. For instance part 61 is "Flight crew licensing" and part 23 is "Airworthiness standards for aeroplanes in the normal, utility, acrobatic or commuter category". Each country is free to vary the contents of the parts but is encouraged by ICAO to stick to the headings/topics. For instance the USA and Australia have very different requirements for what a private pilot licence allows you to do eg the USA allows a private pilot to fly at night. These requirements are spelt out in part 61 of each countries regulations. A country doesn't have to have all of the parts if it doesn't want to.

 

 

In Australia Part 149 is going to be "Approved Self-Administering Aviation Organisations" and will cover the requirements for bodies like RAAus to exist and be recognised. Part 149 is a little bit controversial. In my view it will be the cause of a lot of restrictions for recreational pilots. It is supported by RAAus and SAAA as it will legitimise their right to charge their members significant fees to issue permits, licences and exemptions. Part 149 doesn't exist in the USA.

 

In the USA part 103 is "Ultralight Vehicles" and allows for instance flight without a licence if the aircraft is below a certain weight. Part 103 does not exist in Australia.

 

 

[Roundsounds]

Just need to keep in mind the same people who brought you Parts 61/141/142 will also deliver 103/149.

 

They will cause problems for the industry, significant ones at that.

 

 

[Keith Page]

To be put in a simplistic form Part149 is the act Part103 is the regulations.

 

These parts will recognised to a common standard world wide. I do believe having a common standard world wide will be easier to manage to what we have which is unique to Australia.

 

If one looks into the operation of Part149 and Part103 those parts are not only unique for RAAus and SAAA they are available to other sections of aviation for who ever wishes to utilise them.

 

When those two parts are implemented in Australia there will be a completely different playing field and as I see it - a lot less confusion.

 

KP

 

 

[Roundsounds]

To be put in a simplistic form Part149 is the act Part103 is the regulations.These parts will recognised to a common standard world wide. I do believe having a common standard world wide will be easier to manage to what we have which is unique to Australia.

If one looks into the operation of Part149 and Part103 those parts are not only unique for RAAus and SAAA they are available to other sections of aviation for who ever wishes to utilise them.

 

When those two parts are implemented in Australia there will be a completely different playing field and as I see it - a lot less confusion.

 

KP

If only it was that simple Keith!

As mentioned earlier, the standardisation finishes with a common numbering system and some guidelines. I can tell you CASA have made some really interesting rules in light of the ICAO guidelines under the FCL set. NONE of the RAAus registration or licencing will be recognised overseas, which is why CASA have created a Glider Pilot Licence as the GFA certificates are not recognised overseas. We will end up with a cross between a Camel and a Wombat using CASAs Racehorse design criteria.

 

 

[Nobody]

Keith, there won't be a common standard world wide. Part 149 in New Zealand is different to part 149 in South Africa.(Scroll to page 1005) The only thing that is common is the name of the part.

 

I was wrong in my earlier post there is a draft for the Australian Part 103: nprm0603os.pdf | Civil Aviation Safety Authority

 

but the only thing it has in common with the FAA part 103 is the "103" in the name: 14 CFR Part 103 - ULTRALIGHT VEHICLES

 

 

[440032]

Part 149 NPRM 9805P June 1998.

 

 

[bexrbetter]

Keith, I could sit here all day and cite Australian unique product rules that are ridiculous in that we are a tiny country, but manufacturers have to produce unique and expensive products for our tiny market that are otherwise acceptable to the highest world standards elsewhere.

 

It has never changed in my lifetime and I don't expect it too.

 

 

[ianboag]

We have these in Kiwiland and there are no obvious issues that raise any fuss. Microlight stuff is administered by RAANZ and SAC. CAA sort of stay out of most of it ....

 

 

[Frankus1aust]

Keith, I could sit here all day and cite Australian unique product rules that are ridiculous in that we are a tiny country, but manufacturers have to produce unique and expensive products for our tiny market that are otherwise acceptable to the highest world standards elsewhere.It has never changed in my lifetime and I don't expect it too.

This is not limited to aviation. It seems to be a mindset in some government departments and an incapacity for ministers to penetrate the simplicity of common sense.

 

 

[Mike Borgelt]

Part 149 is just a way for CASA to complete their takeover of what used to be member organisations. Already when CASA says jump these organsations simply ask "how high?" Part 149 will formalise this. Then it will be necessary to form separate organisations to act as political lobbies to safeguard the pilots' interests as the original organisations simply will not.

 

CASA needs to write regulations so that any ordinary private citizen can obey them and not special rules for the "members" of private bodies.

 

You don't need to be a member of an automobile club to have a licence and drive a car. Nor do you have to join an aeroclub/Federation of Aero Clubs to have a GA private licence.

 

RAAus could simply get out of doing administration by a regulation that states: For flying aircraft under 600 Kg the medical standard is a private motor vehicle driver's licence standard and another that says that these aircraft may be maintained by their owners if so desired for private operations.

 

All other operational rules and regulations apply.

 

 

[Nobody]

Part 149 is just a way for CASA to complete their takeover of what used to be member organisations. Already when CASA says jump these organsations simply ask "how high?" Part 149 will formalise this. Then it will be necessary to form separate organisations to act as political lobbies to safeguard the pilots' interests as the original organisations simply will not.CASA needs to write regulations so that any ordinary private citizen can obey them and not special rules for the "members" of private bodies.

You don't need to be a member of an automobile club to have a licence and drive a car. Nor do you have to join an aeroclub/Federation of Aero Clubs to have a GA private licence.

 

RAAus could simply get out of doing administration by a regulation that states: For flying aircraft under 600 Kg the medical standard is a private motor vehicle driver's licence standard and another that says that these aircraft may be maintained by their owners if so desired for private operations.

 

All other operational rules and regulations apply.

Exactly!!! It seems strange but the interests of RAAus and the Interests of the Members of RAAus do not align. If what you proposed happened the pilots of australia would be much better off. If that happened though, RAAus would not be able to charge great money for their pieces of paper and so it is not in RAAus's interest for that to happen. Part 149 will not be good for anyone except CASA and the entrenched organisations that make money "administering" Aviation in australia.

 

 

[jetjr]

organisations that make money "administering" Aviation in australia

I thought they all lost money and that was the problem for most members?

 

 

[Nobody]

Jetjr, You got me. The organisations lose money but provide employment to key people within the organisation...