Sport and recreational rules milestone - Part 149 commences

[turboplanner]

For the individual, the commencement of Part 149 is an air pocket on a sunny day.

 

.......provided he/she ensures by complying with Pert 149 that the air pocket doesn't hurt anyone or damage any property.

 

 

[Student Pilot]

Part 61 with GA was a total waste of time for more complication and a heap of work just for compliance, no benefit. Only made things harder.

 

 

[old man emu]

Make that offer to the RAA and save the members 10 grand ?

 

Cheers,

 

Jack

 

Ha! If only.

 

The cruel irony of it is that CASA has published example documentation for organizations creating their Part 149 applications. All the applicant has to do is gather together some information that would already be on hand and do a "copy & paste" exercise. Given the information relevant to the applicant, the application documentation could be prepared by any junior clerk/typist. (Does that occupation still exist?)

 

The exorbitant prices charged for doing the work are due to massive overheads and tertiary fee debts incurred by the "expert" document writers. 

 

 

[old man emu]

.......provided he/she ensures by complying with Pert 149 that the air pocket doesn't hurt anyone or damage any property.

 

 

Who Part 149 affects

 

 

 

Part 149 affects individuals/organisations involved in sports aviation administration.

 

 

See the big long word at the end of that sentence? It does not say "aircraft owner". It does not say "pilot of an aircraft" It says "administration"

 

From the Cambridge Dictionary:

 

" administration" (noun) :  the arrangements and tasks needed to control the operation of a plan or organization:

 

"administer" (verb) :  to control the operation or arrangement of something:

 

 

[Keith Page]

It’s clear that everyone posting here has access to the internet. Why, when all this information is available, do people jump online and ask someone else what the rules are when they could just as easily read them for themselves. And surely it would be better to question the administrators of the rules than Joe Bloggs online?

 

short version: Read the rules. If you don’t understand them ask the people who made the rules what they mean. 

 

Hmmmmm..Read the rules?

 

You are correct, read the rules is the operative statement. ..BUT.. The interpretations are vast, even whoever we talk to in CASA there is an abundance of interpretations.

 

The other interesting situation the MOS for Part 149 is the same as to what Part 103 is to supposed represent.

 

Work all that out.

 

Some more to consider. South Africa tried to implement Part 149 a few years back and it was unworkable.

 

The advice I have received, this is the same document -- so something must be common.

 

KP

 

 

[turboplanner]

Hmmmmm..Read the rules?

 

You are correct, read the rules is the operative statement. ..BUT.. The interpretations are vast, even whoever we talk to in CASA there is an abundance of interpretations.

 

The other interesting situation the MOS for Part 149 is the same as to what Part 103 is to supposed represent.

 

Work all that out.

 

Some more to consider. South Africa tried to implement Part 149 a few years back and it was unworkable.

 

The advice I have received, this is the same document -- so something must be common.

 

KP

 

The time to raise thoughts like that was in the concultative phase, and you'll remember that people were complaining about how long it was.

 

It would be a big mistake to grab a word here and there and say "Bingo, means nothing to me!"

 

Better to read the entire documents, while understanding what self-administration means for everyone. If you read it based on historic values, yes, it won't seem workable.

 

 

[Keith Page]

The time to raise thoughts like that was in the concultative phase, and you'll remember that people were complaining about how long it was.

 

It would be a big mistake to grab a word here and there and say "Bingo, means nothing to me!"

 

Better to read the entire documents, while understanding what self-administration means for everyone. If you read it based on historic values, yes, it won't seem workable.

 

Historically considering:- supposed to be -- Part 149 the structure Part 103 how it is all going to run and operate..

 

What we get and what we were informed are two different animals.

 

The big question for you Turbo.. What will happen when Part 149 is discovered to be unworkable?

 

KP. 

 

 

[Nobody]

SAAA on Part 149:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MEMBER NOTAM

 

SAAA ends consideration of migrating into a Pt 149 environment

 

 

G'day ,

 

 

Effective 15thJuly 2019, CASA gazetted an important milestone for the Australian sport aviation community – “Sport and recreational rules milestone - Part 149 commences”. The announcement is provided below in full.

 

The question no doubt for many aviators, and especially SAAA members, will be – “So what is SAAA doing about Part 149?“  

 

The simple answer to this question is “Nothing, for the foreseeable future”.

 

This follows a communication to SAAA from CASA on 2ndJuly 2019 “..as Part 149 does not contain any functions that SAAA would administer, it would subsequently not be possible for the SAAA to transition from its current role to becoming an Approved Self-administering Aviation Organisation (ASAO) under Part 149.“  This is of course in the context of Part 149 and the related Manual of Standards as they presently exist.

 

As most members of the sport aviation community will know, SAAA has been a member of the group of nine Australian Sport Aircraft Organisations (SAOs) engaged with CASA on the Part 149 process. SAAA has long been concerned over the relevance of Pt 149 to its Members who represent only a part of the VH registered Experimental Amateur Built (EAB) fleet and its Part 61 licenced pilots whose medicals are also administered by CASA. SAAA has also been especially concerned over many issues, the most significant of which have been around:

 

• Transfer of regulatory responsibilities from CASA to SAOs with no attendant transfer of funding
   
  
• The imposition of “strict liability provisions”
   
  
• The understanding that SAAA members’ current exemptions would at best be frozen in time if SAAA did not migrate to Part 149, thus hindering opportunities for further development of safety outcome improvements, and
   
  
• The fate of VH EAB aircraft and their pilots was unknown
   
  

 

 

SAAA remains unconvinced of the merits of Part 149 being relevant to or able to offer improved safety outcomes for the Australian VH EAB fleet and its pilots.

 

SAAA had commenced a process in late 2016 to re-build from the ground up a system of governance as a “matter of good business”. At that time, and whilst the advent of Part 149 had been heralded to be imminent after 20 or so years in the making, SAAA elected to keep its options open and worked with CASA to ensure that the development of the new system of governance (policies and procedures covering all technical, administrative and financial functions of the SAAA) was developed in a form that would enable a relatively straight forward migration to a Part 149 environment – should that be SAAA’s decision.  SAAA appreciates CASA’s support and guidance in developing our system of governance – our documentation was reviewed on three occasions over the course of 2017 and 2018. Progress at the time of the publication of SAAA’s Exposition was considered by CASA to be words to effect “on track and 90% of the way to meeting the requirements for the SAAA’s migration to a Part 149” (as it was understood at that time).

 

The recent advice from CASA (that Part 149 does not contain a pathway for the SAAA and its Members with VH registered EAB aircraft and its pilots) does not change SAAA’s commitment to its new system of governance. This is simply good business and will stand SAAA in good stead for many years to come.

 

At the CASA Sport Aviation Safety Forum held in Brisbane in 2017, CASA sought input from SAOs around challenges they faced in improving safety outcomes. SAAA expressed the view that the need for type transition training was becoming increasingly more important with the increasing variety and numbers of aircraft with ever increasing performance coming on to the scene.

 

SAAA since worked with CASA over the last few years to bring SAAA’s new Flight Training and Safety program online – and are grateful for CASA’s support in particular with developing a syllabus for type transition training and a mechanism for experienced SAAA pilots to deliver this specific flight training to SAAA Members. We are confident this program will go a long way towards mitigating accidents that have pilot techniques, which are insufficiently developed or current, as their root cause.

 

SAAA, now continuing its operations outside of the Part 149 environment, looks forward to working with CASA as it has done in the past to deliver further safety outcome improvements to its Members and the VH EAB fleet and pilots generally.

 

In respect of all VH registered EAB aircraft and their pilots - irrespective of membership of the SAAA, the functions of aircraft registration, airworthiness, pilot licensing and pilot medicals are administered by CASA. The SAAA focuses on assisting its members to comply with the Civil Aviation Act and on facilitating learning and actions to improve Member safety outcomes.

 

The SAAA is a group of aviation enthusiasts assisting each other to build, maintain and operate sport aircraft. We educate members to continuously improve safety outcomes.

 

Plan Wise – Build Well – Fly Safe!

 

 

 

[turboplanner]

SAAA on Part 149:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, that would make sense, since SAAA is currently within the prescriptive protection of CASA.

 

The same would go for all GA operations.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Historically considering:- supposed to be -- Part 149 the structure Part 103 how it is all going to run and operate..

 

What we get and what we were informed are two different animals.

 

The big question for you Turbo.. What will happen when Part 149 is discovered to be unworkable?

 

KP. 

 

I read the early drafts, and from the persepective of Self-Administration, I found them workable.

 

I don't see any problems with the final regulations, and they don't take all that long to read and absorb, as some people have said.

 

However, if you're still married to the old prescriptive regime then no, you can't make this work.

 

You need to study self-administration and why it has been introduced across most non-corporate activities in Australia, then it will make sense and you'll realise you can lay down the pathway for your own destiny, only it's not likely to include helicopters and GA operations.

 

 

[Yenn]

I am no expert and I don't intend to even try to become one, but the aim of CASA is firstly to cover their arse and then to make it impossible for anyone to be able to get away with anything they don't like. This gives other bodies the ability to manage our style of aviation  and I know there is at least one waiting in the wings, I only wonder if they have the stamina to carry on. I did hear a while back that they were considering taking CASA to court, because of the run around they had been given.

 

I doubt that the threat of court action could have energised CASA, but would like to think that it worked. Time will tell and there may be an alternative to RAAus. I hope so as I have no faith in their current management abilities.

 

 

[djpacro]

Part 61 with GA was a total waste of time for more complication and a heap of work just for compliance, no benefit. Only made things harder.

 

Part 61 has some dangerous, unsafe requirements in it so much worse than “no benefit”.  Interesting that pilots trained under RAA miss out on requirements of RPL training of Part 61 yet an RPC holder is given an RPL by CASA. RPLs may be trained on the same airplane type in the same airspace so I wonder why the syllabus is different.

 

I guess lots of lawyers will be around the broad subject of incipient spin training especially after the next relevant ATSB report and when CASA eventually explains their requirements.

 

The last draft of the Part 91 MOS had some diabolical stuff in it. Some of us made submissions at the NPRM stage and we got some stuff changed in the regs but haven’t seen the final MOS yet.

 

My guess is that many RAA pilots will find surprises in Part 91 as it applies to all.

 

 

[Jim McDowall]

most non-corporate activities in Australia

 

Most non-corporate activities in Australia undertaking "self administration" activities do not involve potential criminal sanctions.

 

BTW self administration has worked well in the construction industry; witness the cladding fiasco, cracking arpartment buildings and unlicensed subbies.

 

South Africa shows the failure of "self administration" in aviation and the US demonstrates that you do not need these bodies as there is no FAA equivalent to Part 149.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Most non-corporate activities in Australia undertaking "self administration" activities do not involve potential criminal sanctions.

 

BTW self administration has worked well in the construction industry; witness the cladding fiasco, cracking arpartment buildings and unlicensed subbies.

 

South Africa shows the failure of "self administration" in aviation and the US demonstrates that you do not need these bodies as there is no FAA equivalent to Part 149.

 

And then there’s the other few decades across Australia’s Corporate, Service, Volunteer and Sporting industries. Add it all up.

 

 

[Jim McDowall]

So that is why we have Royal Commissions into Banks and Trade Unions, Local Government is routinely found to be corrupt, ARL may well be bankrupted by legal action, NRL is in decay with clubs routinely found to be run outside the rules, CFA in Victoria and CFS in SA in conflict with its members, AFL clubs on the brink of bankruptcy,  and the RSL fiasco to name a few. Add it up - hands off regulation doesn't work when members have no where to go to get effective assistance without resort to the Courts.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Actually M61A1 in post #9 is right on the money!

 

 

[turboplanner]

I am usually very, very good with "the rules" (just ask my employer who hates that trait...), but "the rules" as they relate to our operations are such a convoluted mess that I suggest no one can understand them to maintain 100% compliance, 100% of the time - and if you don't, then you've committed an offence of strict liability (I do understand that bit..). As for questioning 'the administrator", try asking CAsA the same question three times in a row, and if you come up with less than 2 answers, you've done well. They can't even understand the meaning of the word foreign...

 

But, let's take a look at one rule of the new Part 149...with my bolding. Count those bold references. There are 18 references to other rules, in this one rule. So, to fully understand this one rule, you have to crossreference those other 18 rules. This is the kind or problem Australian aviation has. The rules are written for lawyers, not those at the coalface, and they are written in such a convoluted way that even if you make an honest and genuine attempt at complying with them, but breach one or more, because they are strict liability offences, CAsA only needs to prove you did it, the 'honest and reasonable' defence doesn't apply. And with a regulator of CAsA's reputation, that is a baaaad thing.

 

Where there is repeated reference to something, historically we would usually write: 'hereinafter referred to a x", x being an abbreviation for a long company name, paragraph or several pages.

 

This usually shortened the document and made it mor manageable to print or staple.

 

In recent times documents have become much bigger because they are not constrained by paper size and weight, and so postage cost, particularly if a large number are mailed out.

 

I deal with plently of documents which go over 250 pages now.

 

Protocol has changed from the "hereinafter" which is not as practical in big documents to a reference to a file number or a section or paragraph, so it's reference is right where the person finishes reading.

 

Just taking awy the focus from CASA for a moment, here's an example from a current local Council document: 

 

"Questions may be asked with or without notice, but must not:

 

      "i) relate to a matter of the type described in Section 89(2) of the Act"

 

This is not from a legal document, but a Council document where any member of this forum, if elected to Council will be expected to read and comply with.

 

For those involved in computer programming, it's very similar to a Routine which is used over and over again - If X happens, goto Subroutine Y etc.