Hi kasper
https://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2015L00228
I agree that breaching any of the conditions, including not complying with Operations and Technical Manuals, renders an RAA pilot liable to charges for breaching a number of the CASRs
3 Exemptions under regulation 11.160
3.1 If the conditions set out in this Order are complied with, in relation to an aeroplane to which this Order applies, the aeroplane is exempt from compliance with the following provisions of CAR 1988:
(a) Parts 4A, 4B, 4C and 4D;
(b) regulation 37;
© subregulations 83 (1) and (2) in respect of VHF equipment;
(d) regulations 133, 139 and 157;
(e) regulations 207 and 208;
(f) regulation 230;
(g) subregulation 242 (2);
(h) regulation 252;
(i) regulation 258.
But the point I was making is that the exemption is contained in CAO 3.1 and in general terms, the rest of the Order is written as a series of proscriptions just like the CASR's or "conditions" followed by a series of exceptions (not exemptions).
Whether or not this is how it's always been done is a moot point; it's whether it provides readers with the clearest understanding of the content and intent that's important. And it very clearly doesn't in my view.
The old CARs were written in relatively plain English and each generally dealt with all aspects of a particular issue therein. It ought not be unreasonable to expect the same in the CASR and the CAO's (putting aside the fact that our new regs are incredibly verbose, punitive and many times more voluminous than those in either USA or NZ).
Although this latest version of the CAO is a significant improvement on the 2011 version and The DAS should be commended for it, we still deserve a whole lot better. Of greatest concern is the catch-all nature of the exemption clause and the way it renders a pilot potentially liable for a number of ancillary offences entirely unrelated to the substantive offence. The use of strict liability provisions in conjunction with this I think severely offends the basic right to a presumption of innocence and the argument that mens rea should not be an element of a defence in matters of public safety shouldn't extend to this situation.
I'd be interested in your thoughts on this last contention.
Kaz