Part 149

[440032]

Part 149 New Zealand - 18 regulations.

 

Part 149 Australia - 46 regulations, plus Manual of Standards not yet in existence which will have many more rules.

 

Part 149 USA - no such thing.

 

 

[facthunter]

Turbs I've always advised people to belong to AOPA. They can't ignore the numbers and many problems are common across the whole scene. Being the "New GA" aspirationally, doesn't help but whether it is or isn't is yet to unfold. I'm a sceptic and have so indicated. any time the subject comes up. Nev

 

 

[turboplanner]

Turbs I've always advised people to belong to AOPA. They can't ignore the numbers and many problems are common across the whole scene. Being the "New GA" aspirationally, doesn't help but whether it is or isn't is yet to unfold. I'm a sceptic and have so indicated. any time the subject comes up. Nev

These days AOPA carries very little weight; I'd rather rely on the CWA.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Part 149 New Zealand - 18 regulations.Part 149 Australia - 46 regulations, plus Manual of Standards not yet in existence which will have many more rules.

Part 149 USA - no such thing.

This is primarily because these countries have different laws.

These regulations are addressing the protection of Australian taxpayers under Australian law, so there's no point in making a country vs country comparison, unless you want to change Australian law - then you have to address all Australian activities from coking sausages outside Bunnings to running the AFL.

 

By the time the ASAO's add the regulations they need to add, there'll be a lot more than 46 (Of course many of those could be their base of existing laws, adjusted for CASA approval in line with the Part 149 clauses.

 

 

[Keith Page]

'Surveillance'.......unfortunate choice of words.......or Freudian slip indicating punitive policing type attitude?Hopefully what is actually intended is 'monitoring' of the general gitalong.......which would of necessity include compliance???

What is very interesting in your comment -- is when one writes those manuals it is so surprising how real thoughts leak through with the used of words.

What I have found -- how aggression shows trough stand out like one never knows what, so it most likely will be there.

 

KP

 

 

[440032]

Yes,

 

17 disgusting and unnecessary threats in Aust Part 149:

 

"A person commits an offence of strict liability if....."

 

37% of the 46 regulations have these threats, which in themselves aren't even regulations, they are just statements/threats.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Yes,17 disgusting and unnecessary threats in Aust Part 149:

"A person commits an offence of strict liability if....."

 

37% of the 46 regulations have these threats, which in themselves aren't even regulations, they are just statements/threats.

The time to discuss those was during the comment periods and in the lead up to the Parliamentary debates, but they are not unreasonable methods of enforcement to ensure a SAO takes safety action they say they will take. What’s far worse is taking away their freedom to self administer.

 

 

[turboplanner]

What is very interesting in your comment -- is when one writes those manuals it is so surprising how real thoughts leak through with the used of words.What I have found -- how aggression shows trough stand out like one never knows what, so it most likely will be there.

KP

Were you aware this was going through Parliament Keith?

 

 

[turboplanner]

What intrigues me is that there seems to be no great concern at losing around 13 Self Administration freedoms.

 

I wouldn’t call these bodies self administering any more, which then begs the question of why pay fees to a body which is being told what to do by CASA. Why not eliminate the ASAOs and be administered directly by CASA without these extra conditions and regulations?

 

 

[Jim McDowall]

Were you aware this was going through Parliament Keith?

It never ceases to amaze how few people know how our laws come into being.

Acts of Parliament are agreed by both houses of parliament. Regulations (like part 149) are usually never subject to the scrutiny of parliament. All that happens is that (in Federal Executive Council) the regulations are assented to by the Governor General on the recommendation of the responsible Minister.

 

Unless there is a dis-allowance motion passed by either of the houses of Parliament within 15 sitting days of the signing into law by the Governor General of the regulation, it remains law until such time it is amended or repealed by another regulation.

 

So as a group (as individuals with a similar objection) we have to get off our collective butts and get our Senators (who are less committed to holding the party line) to move a dis-allowance motion.

 

This is how our democracy works.

 

 

[Jim McDowall]

This is primarily because these countries have different laws.

In the case of NZ, since the days of Malcolm Fraser there has been an agreement between Aus and NZ called the Closer Economic Relationship ("CER") which means that much of our legislation with common interest such as aviation is sought to be harmonised (bureaucratic speak for " made the same")

For this and other reasons which is why the CASR's define a sport aviation body as to mean:

 

...........

 

"(g) a body established in a Contracting State to administer sport aviation in that State."

 

So in short, I can fly a NZ registered ultralight on a NZ part 149 organisation pilot certificate in Australia.

 

 

[Frankus1aust]

Hi all,I'm pretty new to this so this may be silly question

 

However what is exactly meant by

 

Surveillance activities of members of the organisations

 

in Part 149

 

Key proposals - development of Part 149

Here is a recent forum presented by CASA on the development of the new regulations. Prima facie it looks promising from my limited perspective. All it needs is positive and competent industry contribution and engagement

 

 

 

[Keith Page]

Were you aware this was going through Parliament Keith?

Turbo it has been going through Parliament for the last humpteen years, last estimate was June next year. March 2016 was it first promised date so there have been extensions ever since. So do not hold your breath.

KP

 

 

[turboplanner]

Turbs,Within 15 sitting days after tabling a senator may give notice of a motion to disallow the legislative instrument. If the motion is agreed to, the instrument is disallowed and ceases to have effect. If a notice of motion to disallow a legislative instrument has not been resolved or withdrawn within 15 sitting days after having been given, the instrument is deemed to have been disallowed and automatically ceases to have effect.

By my count the Senate has up until and include September 19 to disallow this regulation. Yes it is law but not set in concrete yet! and it does not come into effect until "A single day to be fixed by the Minister by notifiable instrument.

 

However, if the provisions do not commence within the period of 12 months beginning on the day after this instrument is registered, they commence on the day after the end of that period."

 

I am not aware of any proclamation by the Minister - too busy fixing the drought I presume.

It now being September 20, is anyone aware of any Senate move to disallow this regulation?

 

 

[facthunter]

Keith, Umpteen is a number (like Joe's Eleventy). Hump is something else. There's NO "aitch" in Umpteen. Nev

 

 

[Jim McDowall]

It now being September 20, is anyone aware of any Senate move to disallow this regulation?

No motion to disallow in either the Senate or House of Reps.

I sent a 7 page letter requesting a disallowance motion to all Senators and Members. With the exception of 3 notable responses most forwarded it on to the Ministers office, or the Shadow Minister in the case of the Opposition or responded with a standard response which was obviously drafted by CASA:

 

" I understand from the Minister’s office that there was extensive industry and public consultation on the proposed regulations which have been in development for a long time, and they are strongly supported by industry. Safety remains the primary focus for the regulation of sport and recreation activities, as it is for all aviation safety regulations. The regulations give flexibility for sport/recreation users by creating a robust framework for self-administration and they allow CASA to ensure resources are allocated effectively."

 

Next step is to prepare an online petition. Anyone up for it?

 

 

[turboplanner]

No motion to disallow in either the Senate or House of Reps.I sent a 7 page letter requesting a disallowance motion to all Senators and Members. With the exception of 3 notable responses most forwarded it on to the Ministers office, or the Shadow Minister in the case of the Opposition or responded with a standard response which was obviously drafted by CASA:

" I understand from the Minister’s office that there was extensive industry and public consultation on the proposed regulations which have been in development for a long time, and they are strongly supported by industry. Safety remains the primary focus for the regulation of sport and recreation activities, as it is for all aviation safety regulations. The regulations give flexibility for sport/recreation users by creating a robust framework for self-administration and they allow CASA to ensure resources are allocated effectively."

 

Next step is to prepare an online petition. Anyone up for it?

No, it’s all over.