Jim McDowall Posted September 17, 2019 Share Posted September 17, 2019 I just came across the consultation documents for long awaited Part 103. My quick reading of the docs suggests that those of us who have aircraft that have not been "certified" by RAAus (ie most homebuilts) will need an experimental certificate to continue flying them. I hope I'm wrong or the VH option keeps getting better. See at: https://consultation.casa.gov.au/regulatory-program/cd-1910os/ . Consultation closes 30 September. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacesailor Posted September 17, 2019 Share Posted September 17, 2019 Certified Or registered ? None certified seems to imply that the aircraft does Not meet some criteria for RAA registration. Sorry I did not read the report. spacesailor PS: HummelBird, Certified but none registered as Not complying with a Wingload rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aro Posted September 17, 2019 Share Posted September 17, 2019 That's just gobbledygook. Seriously: (1) A Part 103 aircraft is listed with a Part 103 ASAO for the purposes of this regulation if the aircraft is listed with the Part 103 ASAO in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the Part 103 Manual of Standards for the purposes of this subregulation. Who is supposed to read that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim McDowall Posted September 17, 2019 Author Share Posted September 17, 2019 requirements prescribed by the Part 103 Manual of Standards for the purposes of this subregulation. What MOS? does it exist? The Part 103 consultation document titled "Proposed new rules for sport and recreational aviation operations" includes the following passage: "To make it simpler for the sport and recreation community, CASA is considering the development of a plain English guide that consolidates the relevant provisions of Part 91, Part 103 and Part 103 MOS in one easy to read document" The High Court has repeatedly said that legislation should be clear and unambiguous. This statement is an admission that the legislative mess that is aviation law does not meet that standard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacesailor Posted September 18, 2019 Share Posted September 18, 2019 It probably took lots of lawyers to get that paper to an, illegible document. If you wish to read it Get more lawyers to decipher it !. LoL (is it English) spacesailor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Tuncks Posted September 18, 2019 Share Posted September 18, 2019 Apparently lawyers used to get paid by the word and so they learned to use 100 words where a few would have sufficed. The other thing is that businesses add a new clause or two to their contracts every time they lose a case in court, and so the contract grows as time goes by. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted September 19, 2019 Share Posted September 19, 2019 Apparently lawyers used to get paid by the word and so they learned to use 100 words where a few would have sufficed. The other thing is that businesses add a new clause or two to their contracts every time they lose a case in court, and so the contract grows as time goes by. You sure pick up some weird information. I'm not a lawyer, but I mix with them at VCAT, where at times a planning case can be decided by a legal definition of a single word. The State Government tries to prevent any loophole by providing a succinct definition for every key word, but sure enough, a case will come up where a lawyer is arguing his/her case based on something we never dreamed of. The clause quoted above does seem a bit convoluted, but it may well be that every word was required to remove the tricks of the good old boys. You could precis it down to "An aircraft os listed with an ASAO if it complies." With that in mind, when you see the clause, you can see the when what how why etc. Miss any of those and someone will complain somewhere, or even succeed in legally not complying with the spirit of the regulation. "(1) A Part 103 aircraft is listed with a Part 103 ASAO for the purposes of this regulation if the aircraft is listed with the Part 103 ASAO in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the Part 103 Manual of Standards for the purposes of this subregulation." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Tuncks Posted September 19, 2019 Share Posted September 19, 2019 Yep Turbs, apparently some cases hang on the punctuation. When this sort of thing happens, it means that the legislation was poorly drafted and therefore not clear. I know this guy who writes his own contracts. He makes them crystal clear and lawyers hate him because they like to have "wiggle room " in their contracts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacesailor Posted September 19, 2019 Share Posted September 19, 2019 "An aircraft os listed with an ASAO if it complies." "(1) A Part 103 aircraft is listed with a Part 103 ASAO for the purposes of this regulation if the aircraft is listed with the Part 103 ASAO in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the Part 103 Manual of Standards for the purposes of this subregulation." Still dutch to me ? An aircraft is listed, " Which part of the regulation would the aircraft be listed in. spacesailor 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M61A1 Posted September 20, 2019 Share Posted September 20, 2019 Certain Part 103 aircraft must be listed (2) The owner of a Part 103 aircraft contravenes this subregulation if: (a) the aircraft is an aircraft other than a sailplane, hang glider, powered hang glider, paraglider or powered paraglider; and (b) the aircraft has an empty weight of more than 70 kg; and © a person operates the aircraft; and (d) the aircraft is not listed with a Part 103 ASAO. Sounds like bullsh1t to me..... According to their regs it's only a part 103 aircraft if it's listed. But...somehow it's an offence if the owner of a part 103 aircraft operates that aircraft and it weighs more than 70 kg but isn't listed. (it's NOT a part 103 aircraft if it's not listed!) I can't seem to find the Part 103 MOS anywhere.....given that this document constantly refers to it, how can anyone possibly review this draft without it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted September 20, 2019 Share Posted September 20, 2019 I opened that up thinking that they would have clarified the statements that make regulations but its just a continuation of the same faulty language that plagues aviation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacesailor Posted September 20, 2019 Share Posted September 20, 2019 Most Lawyer's have a "Free 1st consultation" I might just say to one, "decypher this please", One look at the gobbly gook that we are supposed to abide by, & IT will be passed on. spacesailor 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Tuncks Posted September 20, 2019 Share Posted September 20, 2019 Space, don't trust any lawyers! There was this lot in Qld who advertised " No win, no fee". Their small print specified that a settlement was a win, so they settled at a fraction of the amount and then charged the mug plaintiff an exorbitant fee. All perfectly legal. The plaintiffs who were so angry that they wouldn't pay were eventually evicted from the houses they thought they owned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
walrus Posted September 20, 2019 Share Posted September 20, 2019 What’s the criteria for listing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M61A1 Posted September 20, 2019 Share Posted September 20, 2019 What’s the criteria for listing? It's somewhere in the currently unavailable Part 103 Manual of Standards. Yet somehow we are supposed to make some kind of informed comment about this document. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim McDowall Posted September 21, 2019 Author Share Posted September 21, 2019 The proposed regulation without the MOS referred to is like buying clothes on ebay because you like the colour and forget to see what size you will be delivered. You get what the seller wants to deliver. CASA has form on this regulatory approach of leaving the detail to a MOS and their online straight jacketed approach to consultation makes a farce of consultation. The Part 149 MOS is so open to interpretation by CASA any sensible commercial operator would not go near Part 149 but the ASAO are damned to conform to CASA's demands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now