New regulation for sport and recreational aviation (Part 149)

[Admin]

New regulation for sport and recreational aviation (Part 149)

 

16 July 2018

 

Sport and recreational aviation has received a new level of recognition in Australia, with the making of the first aviation regulation designed for the sector.

 

The regulation formalises co-regulatory arrangements that have existed for many decades with sport and recreational aviation organisations, but previously only in conditional exemptions from the standard aviation rules.

 

The new Part 149 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 (CASR) brings more transparency, flexibility and certainty for the sector. The sector incorporates a range of activities that cover non-standard aircraft types such as balloons, gliders, historic, experimental, ex-military and replica aircraft.

 

The regulatory change acknowledges the strong history of safe self-administration in sport and recreational aviation, and the popularity of sport and recreational aviation today. It also acknowledges the high performance standards of today's sport and recreational aircraft.

 

The new Part 149 regulation recognises sport and recreational aviation as a standard sector of aviation in Australia.

 

Next steps

 

To operate under Part 149, sport and recreational organisations need to apply for a Part 149 authorisation. CASA will work with organisations to develop their documentation, which will outline how they will safely carry out important aspects of their safety-related self-administration functions. This could include flying operations, maintenance and training and assessing.

 

CASA will shortly open a consultation on a Part 149 Manual of Standards, which will need to be in place before organisations can operate under the new ruleset.

 

Finalising the Part 149 regulation has been a priority for CASA's regulatory program and has been developed over many years in close consultation with industry.

 

View CASR Part 149 on the Federal Register of Legislation.

 

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

Thanks Ian.

 

Are the RAAus, GFA and ELAAA working on their proposals for the manual of standards?

 

Will it be years before we see anything happen? I see that it is 20 years since the 1998 part 149 was promulgated

 

 

[kasper]

The devil will be in the detail ... like the new car200.002 from part149

 

“

 

(2) The requirement is that the aeroplane has been certificated by the relevant organisation as meeting the requirements set out in the manual prepared by the relevant organisation and approved by CASA, and as in force from time to time, that contains:

 

(a) airworthiness, design and maintenance standards; and

 

(b) aeronautical practices, test procedures and processes.”

 

So there is the basis for 95.10 aircraft being regulated and tested exactly the same as a factory built and tested airframe if RAAus and CASA want to.

 

 

[Mike Borgelt]

What a masterful piece of Newspeak and lies. Must set new standards for government lying.

 

 

 

New regulation for sport and recreational aviation (Part 149)

 

16 July 2018

 

 

 

Sport and recreational aviation has received a new level of recognition in Australia, with the making of the first aviation regulation designed for the sector.

 

 

 

The regulation formalises co-regulatory arrangements that have existed for many decades with sport and recreational aviation organisations, but previously only in conditional exemptions from the standard aviation rules.

 

 

CASA has always been quite careful to claim the organisations were "self administering" not "self regulating" so the above is inaccurate

 

The new Part 149 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 (CASR) brings more transparency, flexibility and certainty for the sector. The sector incorporates a range of activities that cover non-standard aircraft types such as balloons, gliders, historic, experimental, ex-military and replica aircraft.

 

 

 

Really? What it does is add another layer of complex bureaucracy on to Australia's already Byzantine aviation regulatory system with private individuals and organisations doing public servants' jobs for them.

 

The regulatory change acknowledges the strong history of safe self-administration in sport and recreational aviation, and the popularity of sport and recreational aviation today. It also acknowledges the high performance standards of today's sport and recreational aircraft.

 

 

A flat out lie. The accident record in RAAus and GFA is nothing to be proud of and as it is, is based on fabricated and grossly exaggerated hours flown.

 

The new Part 149 regulation recognises sport and recreational aviation as a standard sector of aviation in Australia.

 

 

Whoop de do! It has only been in existence for 85 years or so. If CASA wanted to recognise this sector properly it would simply call it part of private aviation. No separate recognition is required.

 

Next steps

 

To operate under Part 149, sport and recreational organisations need to apply for a Part 149 authorisation. CASA will work with organisations to develop their documentation, which will outline how they will safely carry out important aspects of their safety-related self-administration functions. This could include flying operations, maintenance and training and assessing.

 

 

If the organisations were smart (they aren't) they would refuse to apply. There are huge onerous liabilities and duties imposed on private individuals and organisations, let alone possible legal conflict with the duties of incorporated associations under State laws. Why do public servants' jobs for them and take on liabilities that belong to CASA? We will have a situation where CASA will impose rules and the organisations will wear the responsibility and liability.

 

CASA will shortly open a consultation on a Part 149 Manual of Standards, which will need to be in place before organisations can operate under the new ruleset.

 

 

 

Finalising the Part 149 regulation has been a priority for CASA's regulatory program and has been developed over many years in close consultation with industry.

 

 

Geez it started in 1998. All it really needed was some small changes to regulations so that they can be complied with by different types of flying vehicles.

 

 

 

View CASR Part 149 on the Federal Register of Legislation.

 

 

What a complete and utter waste of effort and money which hasn't finished yet and will go on in future ad infinitum

 

 

[turboplanner]

A spin doctor is a spin doctor is a spin doctor in any industry, and they have their own set of boundaries which tends to keep them out of trouble.

 

For that reason hanging on their every word, and then deriding them based on its definition is not a productive experience.

 

Rather than rely on what someone has said in a moment of excitement; it might be more productive to find out what has changed to prompt this effusive announcement.

 

If it squeezes down to CASA conducting consultations for a future manual shortly, I wouldn't be breaking out the flags and organising a march.

 

 

[Mike Borgelt]

It appears to be an official press release justifying a government policy. It is lies.

 

 

[turboplanner]

New regulation for sport and recreational aviation (Part 149)

 

16 July 2018

 

 

You've managed to get me intrigued, so I'll also attempt a translation:

 

 

 

 

"Sport and recreational aviation has received a new level of recognition in Australia, with the making of the first aviation regulation designed for the sector."

 

Translation: This will make SARA feel important.

 

The regulation formalises co-regulatory arrangements that have existed for many decades with sport and recreational aviation organisations, but previously only in conditional exemptions from the standard aviation rules.

 

Translation: Just in case we forgot to tell you when we should have, that by being conditionally exempted from safety rules applying to all other flyers, you were flying on your own self-liability, we're going to explain some things."

 

The new Part 149 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 (CASR) brings more transparency, flexibility and certainty for the sector. The sector incorporates a range of activities that cover non-standard aircraft types such as balloons, gliders, historic, experimental, ex-military and replica aircraft.

 

Translation: If you have a good understanding of the changes which have taken place in Australia over the past 30 years, you will see (transparency) how you can do anything you want to do (based on the guidelines), and be certain who will be held accountable for it; you. And, if you don't know who you are, here are a few clues."

 

The regulatory change acknowledges the strong history of safe self-administration in sport and recreational aviation, and the popularity of sport and recreational aviation today. It also acknowledges the high performance standards of today's sport and recreational aircraft.

 

Translation: A little bit of puffery can't hurt; even if these standards fall away, and the high performance turns to high forced landings, SARA is responsible, not us.

 

 

The new Part 149 regulation recognises sport and recreational aviation as a standard sector of aviation in Australia.

 

Comment: Sporting bodies used to be "sanctioned" by peak bodies who set the rules. Suddenly the Peak Bodies found they were being sued for incidents caused by the people they sanctioned. "Recognised" is quite a good word which excludes any "Control" "Approval" or "Sanction" meaning and also distances CASA from clowns who want to strap some batteries and electric powered props on and go for it in the parking area of the local shopping centre.

 

 

Next steps

To operate under Part 149, sport and recreational organisations need to apply for a Part 149 authorisation. CASA will work with organisations to develop their documentation, which will outline how they will safely carry out important aspects of their safety-related self-administration functions. This could include flying operations, maintenance and training and assessing.

 

Translation: If you don't apply you'll fall outside "recognised" status, and you'll have no benchmark to protect yourself against - you'll be toast if something goes wrong. You have to write your own documentation so you are legally liable for your operations, and they might help you in cases where you are sued.

 

 

CASA will shortly open a consultation on a Part 149 Manual of Standards, which will need to be in place before organisations can operate under the new ruleset.

 

Translation: You will provide the consultation on the manual, so its your manual, your responsibility.

 

 

Finalising the Part 149 regulation has been a priority for CASA's regulatory program and has been developed over many years in close consultation with industry.

 

Translation: Spin, often known these days as an end note.

 

Your comment: "Geez it started in 1998. All it really needed was some small changes to regulations so that they can be complied with by different types of flying vehicles."

I must point out that my above comments are based on my own interpretation of what I read, and may not have any realistic basis at all, but then again, the document is so bad, that I doubt you would get two summaries the same from ten different people who read it.

 

1998 was around the watershed in Victoria where liability passed from the State to the participants, a good example being the Road Safety (Vehicles) Regulations 1999, which corrected motor vehicle designers opinions that codes were voluntary by mandating the codes. Industry still managed the codes and introduced new codes, but the legislation mandated their use, without incurring any State liability.

 

This long saga looks very much like the same process to me.

 

 

[Mike Borgelt]

Well done, Turbo!

 

That is about what I translate it as.

 

Don't forget to add "We aren't allowed to tax you so we get you to be required to join private bodies who will effectively do this and of course we still get the fuel taxes you pay, so we get you TWICE. The organisations will be required to get their own liability insurance so we'll get you THREE times."

 

In a country already renowned for badly written, crippling, high cost, aviation regulation, CASA is plumbing new lows. Won't do anything for safety either. People are so busy complying with mostly arbitrary rules that they aren't thinking about what they are doing. I suspect if there were no or very few rules and it was made very clear that YOU are totally responsible, people might be more thoughtful and careful.

 

 

[Downunder]

Z

 

People are so busy complying with mostly arbitrary rules that they aren't thinking about what they are doing. I suspect if there were no or very few rules and it was made very clear that YOU are totally responsible, people might be more thoughtful and careful.

Slightly off topic but that is just about exactly where industrial safety stands today.

 

You are more worried about finding the correct forms, ticking the correct boxes, getting the correct people to sign and counter sign than the ACTUAL safe operation of the task involved.

 

 

[turboplanner]

ZSlightly off topic but that is just about exactly where industrial safety stands today.

You are more worried about finding the correct forms, ticking the correct boxes, getting the correct people to sign and counter sign than the ACTUAL safe operation of the task involved.

Not a whole lot has changed in the last 30 years except that the participants in most industries have progressively become legally responsible for their own negligence.

This is something which people on this forum have asked for many times, apparently not realising they are part of the group.

 

The governments who offloaded these responsibilities have understandably been reluctant to highlight the handover.

 

With the exceptions of controlled situations like road rules and crimes, we've been living in a world of self administration.

 

Today, doing the right thing or the wrong thing is a lot more black and white than it was a generation ago, when you could con an Inspector, then the minute he left the factory pull all the guards off and pull out the old electrical cords.

 

There are companies where the Safety Management System has been badly written, or is wrong.

 

If you are having problems, it's not a good idea just plugging along; it's probable that either you are wrong, or whoever is running the system is wrong, and there's no point prolonging things until and event occurs and your find yourself forking out your house to defend your side of the story. Better to sit down with management now.

 

 

[Mike Borgelt]

What has happened is that the Authorities want to make the rules and then take no responsibility for outcomes by blaming the victims when things go wrong.

 

They do this by obfuscating the chain of responsibility for the rules and making so many rules that it is impossible to operate without breaking some. Then when a mishap occurs they can point to a broken rule. Part 149 is just the latest attempt. It is designed to place a moat around the existing RAAus and GFA, the leadership of which organisations are too stupid to realise they are being lumped with onerous responsibilities and liabilities. I think ELAAA will have a lot of trouble getting CASA approval.

 

Don't forget that the aim is to making private aviation so complex and expensive that it dies out. They have almost succeeded.

 

You can tell this is true because Shane Carmody felt it necessary to deny that that was the plan in his latest missive. When a government official specifically denies something, you can bet it is true.

 

 

[turboplanner]

It is designed to place a moat around the existing RAAus and GFA, the leadership of which organisations are too stupid to realise they are being lumped with onerous responsibilities and liabilities.

Which by inference means the members of those organisations are happy to go along with it?

 

 

[facthunter]

Writing things in plain English that we can all understand the meaning and application, of is not addressed. CASA are experts at this because it's all passed by the Lawyers who have the final say in the wordage. Lawyers write the CASR's and that's fine and they are the LAW (passed by Parliament), and naturally inclined to be in legalese.. BUT

 

. Communication with Pilots and other Industry participants, should be regarded as "working documents" all can understand and in a form as clear and unambiguous as can be achieved. There's NO room for confusion in Aviation. especially with the ever present Strict Liability over lay.

 

" Recognizing" the U/L segment to bring more regulation can't be seen as a benefit to the users.. Safety isn't directly related to strict control only. There are other ways.... Education and Peer group Pressure beats FINES and GAOL in an unequal battle with the Law. and an Authority with a proven history of punishing people who dare to differ with some "questionable" findings and outcomes.

 

. CASA have a bit of PR to manage. in the Industry., and it's been that way for some time. As I've said before the Legislation defining the Purpose and Function of the Authority needs addressing. at source. A bit of a look at other Countries practices would be a good start. This has to be initiated in the Parliament of the Federal Government. The relevant Minister is the NEW Deputy PM and Leader of the National Party....Nev

 

 

[Mike Borgelt]

Turbs, the next time the leadership takes any notice of what the members think will be the first.

 

A while back a GFA President was heard to say "we can't have proper elections because the wrong people may get in". Tells you all you need to know.

 

I doubt the Part 149 and implications thereof have been much discussed with the membership who will be paying the bills. CASA is mandating that certain jobs be filled etc, etc all of which will cost heaps and result in complete inflexibility.

 

The organisations which used to be member organisations will continue to be merely CASA subcontractors and incapable of being advocacy organisations under threat that their certification as a Part 149 organisation will be taken away.

 

CASA has already said that under Part 149, if the GFA ceases to be able to do its Part 149 obligations, GLIDING WILL CEASE will cease until another organisation is approved by CASA. I presume the same will apply to RAAus.

 

Now these organisations can go broke, be sued into oblivion, the Board can flee under the threat that their personal assets are on the line and nobody is willing to replace them, fall below a viable number of "members" (watch the GFA over the next ten years), be diddled out of large sums of money (already happened) which threaten continued operation etc. Look at how long it has taken ELAAA to get CASA approval. How many years has it been? CASA is in no hurry for anything and no gliding or ultralight flying will suit them just fine.

 

Any accidents occuring during this time will be by illegal operations, which also suits CASA.

 

The correct way to do regulation is as facthunter says, is by education and per pressure. Also by having a clear set of CASA rules (CASA can consult on what they should be) which anyone can operate to and delegations for those who will issue airworthiness certificates, maintenance qualifications and pilot licences etc. These delegates are then carrying out a CASA function and covered by CASA liability. JUST LIKE THE REST OF GA.

 

As I said the "leadership" of the organisations see Part 149 as cementing the positions of their organisations and protecting them from competition. They have long ago forgotten why the organisations are there.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Turbs, the next time the leadership takes any notice of what the members think will be the first.A while back a GFA President was heard to say "we can't have proper elections because the wrong people may get in". Tells you all you need to know.

I doubt the Part 149 and implications thereof have been much discussed with the membership who will be paying the bills. CASA is mandating that certain jobs be filled etc, etc all of which will cost heaps and result in complete inflexibility.

 

The organisations which used to be member organisations will continue to be merely CASA subcontractors and incapable of being advocacy organisations under threat that their certification as a Part 149 organisation will be taken away.

 

CASA has already said that under Part 149, if the GFA ceases to be able to do its Part 149 obligations, GLIDING WILL CEASE will cease until another organisation is approved by CASA. I presume the same will apply to RAAus.

 

Now these organisations can go broke, be sued into oblivion, the Board can flee under the threat that their personal assets are on the line and nobody is willing to replace them, fall below a viable number of "members" (watch the GFA over the next ten years), be diddled out of large sums of money (already happened) which threaten continued operation etc. Look at how long it has taken ELAAA to get CASA approval. How many years has it been? CASA is in no hurry for anything and no gliding or ultralight flying will suit them just fine.

 

Any accidents occuring during this time will be by illegal operations, which also suits CASA.

 

The correct way to do regulation is as facthunter says, is by education and per pressure. Also by having a clear set of CASA rules (CASA can consult on what they should be) which anyone can operate to and delegations for those who will issue airworthiness certificates, maintenance qualifications and pilot licences etc. These delegates are then carrying out a CASA function and covered by CASA liability. JUST LIKE THE REST OF GA.

 

As I said the "leadership" of the organisations see Part 149 as cementing the positions of their organisations and protecting them from competition. They have long ago forgotten why the organisations are there.

It might pay to examine the documents.

 

 

[ave8rr]

It might pay to examine the documents.

What documents RAAus/GFA or part149? Examples please.

 

 

[turboplanner]

What documents RAAus/GFA or part149? Examples please.

CASA+Part 149

 

 

[Jim McDowall]

The regulations are make it clear that recreational aviation is on a temporary basis as ASAO certificates can only be issued for a period of up to 5 years (149.075). Also CASA can limit the number of ASAO (149.060) - I wonder what the ACCC would make of that restraint of trade?

 

I note that:

 

the position of safety manager and any other key personnel position in the ASAO’s organisation may be occupied by the same person simultaneously only:

 

 

 

(i) in an unforeseen circumstance, and for the period specified in the ASAO’s exposition; or

 

 

 

 

 

(ii) in the circumstances, and for the period, for which the ASAO holds an approval under regulation 149.005.

 

149.005 allows for the circumstance where the ASAO is a natural person. It is interesting that whilst the person referred to in 149.005 can be anybody on the planet (ie not an Australian citizen or resident) a corporate body must be be registered in Australia. Why is it that corporate organisations must have a dedicated safety manager when EASA is in the process of doing away with SMS for the light end of GA?

 

CASR 149.200 requires that if a key personnel cannot carry out responsibilities for 35 days, CASA must be informed 5 or 10 days after the ASAO becomes aware of the absence. CASA seems to imagine that ASAO's are vast bureacracies as no account is taken of the annual leave that may be taken over the Xmas period. In any event the penalty is for not informing CASA not having the position vacant which may lead to suspension of authorisation as a secondary effect. If the authorisation is suspended were are all potentially screwed by a bureacratic oversight on the part of the relevant ASAO.

 

Without the MOS in place how can any exposition be written or do some incumbents get the inside running? (potential Criminal Code offence?) And in any event which Act of Parliament gave CASA the right to delegate its enforcement powers to private organisations (149.290)?.

 

This poorly drafted, intellectually weak piece of legislation must have been rushed out (how can any one be expected to get something together after only 20 years of work in a vacuum?) to meet a management deadline.

 

 

[turboplanner]

The Victorian transport legislation was relatively easy. It was an elected government stepping away from checking and conducting the registration process, and handing over responsibility for the design and compliance to the people directly involved.

 

In this case there’s a semi autonomous Safety Body between the elected government and the users.

 

It still would have been easy if RA aircraft had stuck to paddocks and below 300 feet, but now they operate in legislated airspace, so there are implications for CASA, Airservices, ATSB etc to deal with, so any attempt to hand off liability to the members of a SAO while at the same time actually legislated for it, is necessarily very complex.

 

 

[Mike Borgelt]

What does the Victorian transport legislation have to do with aviation regulation?

 

 

[turboplanner]

What does the Victorian transport legislation have to do with aviation regulation?

Technically nothing at all; legally a prarallel path.

Same as comparing RAA and GFA; different parameters, different issue but both needing to come grips with self regulation and its responsibilities.

 

 

[turboplanner]

I mentioned in #19 that CASA's task with Part 149 could be very complicated, with decisions having to be made on what to prescribe, and therefore retain liability for, then what to hand over to the self administering pilots, for which they are liable, then work out what to do to stop the serial rule flouters taking advantage and hitting a legitimate GA or RPT flight, sometimes reassuming some of the liability they had handed off, the result doesn't have to be pure words which in the finish NOBODY understands.

 

The automotive industry is using some lateral thinking with Infocentres/Navigation panels, where you can now use the gps in several ways, including visual navigation while entering a restaurant name, while telling Siri to text someone etc.

 

This is the Honda system, but I understand is in the process of being adopted across the board.

 

When the engine starts, the first panel comes on, inviting you to agree to the terms of use. It stays on for a minute, then reverts to a clock - about the same information as your upmarket 1953 Morris Oxford provided.

 

No complicated regulations or rules - simple!

 

 

 

[Mike Borgelt]

Amazing. I couldn't understand that gibberish at all.

 

Seems like it would be vastly easier for CASA to write some regs suited to the "not standard" aircraft like ultralights, gliders and balloons and leave it at that. The "not standard" aircraft need slightly different regs suited to their characteristics (note that no helicopter meets fixed wing standards, hence they have their own airworthiness requirements and pilot requirements). Gliders and ultralights fly like any fixed wing aircraft hence at most a logbook entry orendorsement like retractable landing gear, constant speed prop etc. The FAA manages this without fuss or bother and their advocacy organisations have not been suborned by the FAA, unlike CASA's undermining of our organisations.

 

As for the serial flouters, whatever regs are in existence will not stop them. Isn't it amazing that criminals don't obey the law! Fortunately aviation is very Darwinian and if we want to apply peer group pressure we should stop saying what a great bloke and pilot Bloggs was and how he "died doing something he loved" when he does something utterly stupid and kills himself and others and tell the truth that he was a dumb f___ who made himself and the rest of us look bad. The thought of people saying that at your funeral might get a few people's attention.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Amazing. I couldn't understand that gibberish at all.

Time to join today's era; a lot of regulations will be more complex in many fields.

 

Seems like it would be vastly easier for CASA to write some regs suited to the "not standard" aircraft like ultralights, gliders and balloons and leave it at that. The "not standard" aircraft need slightly different regs suited to their characteristics (note that no helicopter meets fixed wing standards, hence they have their own airworthiness requirements and pilot requirements). Gliders and ultralights fly like any fixed wing aircraft hence at most a logbook entry orendorsement like retractable landing gear, constant speed prop etc.

Depends what Part 149 is intended to do.

The 1999 Safety Regulations I previously mentioned more or less said "Motor Car Act 1958 plus it's mandatory to comply with all the safety codes you told us were either voluntary or bullsh!t; oh and don't forget you'll be keeping those codes up to date and writing any new ones YOU think necessary to protect yourself."

 

It did take them 10 years to get to that point, but they made a clean break and so far have kept their sticky fingers out, except to add Chain of Responsibility, which has now been extended to design.

 

The FAA manages this without fuss or bother and their advocacy organisations have not been suborned by the FAA, unlike CASA's undermining of our organisations.

The FAA that was is not the FAA that is; it has moved for similar reasons we have and is different today. The last time someone wailed about the evil CASA vs the Golden FAA, I went looking for the regulation and it was almost word for word with ours; not surprising since both countries comply with ICAO standards. There's noting wrong with comparing CASA with the FAA, but better to check the latest FAA documents first.

 

As for the serial flouters, whatever regs are in existence will not stop them. Isn't it amazing that criminals don't obey the law!

See my post #22 above, and there will be a lot more coming - like alcohol interlocks.

 

Fortunately aviation is very Darwinian and if we want to apply peer group pressure we should stop saying what a great bloke and pilot Bloggs was and how he "died doing something he loved" when he does something utterly stupid and kills himself and others and tell the truth that he was a dumb f___ who made himself and the rest of us look bad. The thought of people saying that at your funeral might get a few people's attention.

We've already gone beyond that by ensuring the people he harmed are recompensed.