Source: https://consultation.casa.gov.au/regulatory-program/part-91-of-casr-and-associated-mos-for-general-ope/consultation/view_respondent?uuId=243243721
Timestamp: 2019-05-20 12:56:35
Document Index: 614079690

Matched Legal Cases: ['ART 91', 'art 91', 'ART 91', 'art 91', 'ART 91', 'art 91', 'art 25', 'art 61', 'art 61']

Response 243243721
Page 131. 30.39 Supplemental oxygen. The change of requirements to align more with internationally accepted requirements is applauded. However, 30.39(2) states that supplemental oxygen has to be available, and nowhere does it say that it has to be used. For example, line 3 for a cabin altitude above FL150 where oxygen clearly must be used, the wording does not say so. Also, is it intended that the 30 minutes requirement >=FL125 and <FL140 can be exercised several times on a flight – eg an unpressurised aircraft not equipped with oxygen could cruise at FL135 as long as the pilot ducks to below FL125 every 30 minutes.
Page 82. 20.05(2). Interception. It is fine to refer to an ICAO document as a source, but the relevant parts of that document must be published in a place of reasonably easy access to Australian pilots. The MOS may be the appropriate place or AIP, irrespective of whether it also appears in the proposed guidance document.
PART 91 COMMENTS	(3 A4 Pages)	9 April 2018 Many aspect of the draft Part 91 and associated MOS were good. The wording is legalistic, but generally not too difficult to interpret. Clearly, a lot of effort and thought has been put into this development. There still are a good number of formatting errors, which is surprising considering the number of eyes which must have checked these documents prior to public release. Below are some aspects that I consider need attention, along with some suggestions. PART 91 REGULATION Page 79. Subpart 91.K—Instruments, indicators, equipment and systems. The regulation should at least somewhere list what systems are going to be covered in the MOS. For example, oxygen is covered in the MOS, but the word “oxygen” does not exist anywhere in the regulation. Details in the MOS are primarily about system requirements, but there are occasional pilot requirements (eg lights on and off) mixed up with these. Makes things a little untidy, but not a big issue. PART 91 MOS Page 17. Definitions and Abbreviations. "DA means decision height." Wrong. DA means decision altitude. DH means decision height, but this is not mentioned in the abbreviations. Refer later to good definitions for MDA and MDH. Page 18. Definitions and Abbreviations. "LOC means localised." Typo. LOC means Localiser. Page 28 Table 2.03(4). VMC does not list G airspace in column 1. The reader has to interpret that G applies to the first two rows. There is no mention of the current below 3,000 ft AMSL or 1,000 ft AGL clear of cloud rules – have these been deliberately removed? Is this document the consultation covering that removal? Page 41. 8.13. The status of more modern solar based systems airfield lighting should be stated in this section. Does solar battery PAL systems, of which there are several versions, qualify as PAL? What is the status of solar non switched independent LED lighting of the type that charges independently during daylight and stays on all night? Page 42. 8.14. The current general alternate minima is 500 ft and 2 km above the circling minima. (b) adds 4 km, whereas it should be 2 km. 8.15(3) states 500 ft and 2 km if needed overseas. A 4 km tolerance does not make sense as this takes the visibility up to 6.4 km, in excess of VMC requirement. The note states to see 8.03 for the tolerances in ceiling and visibility, whereas 8.03 states requirements, not tolerances. Page 46. Table 9.04. For small IFR turboprop aircraft, CAAP 234-1(1) recommends 30 mins plus 10%. Why is this no longer allowed? (I did not participate in an earlier consultation on this.) Page 68. 14.02(4)(a). Local QNH is defined at 11.05, not 6.05. Page 68. 14.02(4)(b). The excellent concept of an “actual area QHN” is introduced for approaches at 14.03. Refer to comments on this paragraph below. The sub-paragraph here should be changed to something akin: (b) if the current local QNH is not known — the actual area QNH or the current area forecast QNH. Page 68. 14.02(6) and (7). Changing between QHN and 1013. "(6) On climb, the PIC must change between QNH and 1013.2 hPa on passing 10 000 feet." "(7) On descent, the PIC must change between 1013.2 hPa and the QNH on passing 10 000 ft. " (7) is clearly wrong in requiring the change to QNH at 10,000 ft. None the less, there are issues with the practical process driven by the wording here, and it differs from the current AIP, as copied below: “2.1.4 The position to change between QNH and 1013.2HPA shall always be in the Standard Pressure Region on climb after passing 10,000FT and prior to levelling off, or on descent to a level in the Altimeter Setting Region prior to entering the Transition Layer and is shown in Figure 1.” The AIP wording is long standing and eminently practical, whereby the new part 91 MOS wording will drive a more difficult process. For example, if the (7) wording is intended to be change to QNH AT the Transition Level, then this will impose a requirement on descent for the pilot to know the transition level at various QNH values, and vary the procedure depending on QNH. The present rule allows the pilot to change to QNH anytime from top of descent to the transition level, hence a change approaching FL120 means the pilot does not have to consider exactly where the transition level is. This AIP wording needs to be retained. Page 68. 14.03(1)(c). (c) the actual area QNH from an approved source; This introduces a new concept of “actual area QNH”, which has great merit. The AIP presently jumps from forecast aerodrome QHN to forecast area QNH. Because it is not currently mentioned, area QHN as provided by ATC is generally treated the same as forecast area QNH (ie 50 ft added to MDA), but there is no known written basis either way. Presuming that actual area QNH is the area QNH provided by ATC, this inclusion makes eminent sense, as does placing it on par with forecast aerodrome QNH (ie no requirement to add 50 ft). However, the source of actual area QHN (presumably ACT) should be clearly stated here. Refer also to 14.02(4)(b) above as applies to below 10,000 ft operations (other than an approach). Page 81. 20.04(2). Marshalling. It is fine to refer to an ICAO document as a source, but the relevant parts of that document must be published in a place of reasonably easy access to Australian pilots and marshallers. The MOS is the appropriate place, irrespective of whether it also appears in the proposed guidance document. Page 85. 23.03. This only applies to a child. For an infant, why are similarly approved automotive restraint systems not approved? Page 88 on. Part 25. Use of Radio. Although the wording in this Part may be valid, it is dated and does not reflect all current requirements. There is no stated relief from the calls when an aircraft is identified by ATC, particularly relevant now with ADS-B. There are many more calls required of a pilot as listed in AIP, which could equally be listed here. This whole subject will be messy. Changing a regulation takes excessive time, and if Part 61 is an example, changing a MOS is not much faster, with odd instruments filling in for years. Radio calls should be specified as a group in a place subject to easy change of requirements (such as the recent STAR and SID terminology). AIP is likely the best place. Page 143. 30.63(2)(b). As a modern alterative to pyrotechnic flares, laser fan beam pointing devices referred to as “laser flares” are now common and becoming standard. Life raft manufacturers now include these in the pack rather than pyrotechnics. Lasers run for many hours rather than one shot short period devices like flares, and they are not classified as significant dangerous goods. This paragraph should specify the laser devices are an alternative to flares. Page 146. Figure 30.64 TAS RA Tasmania remote area. Map shows the Snowy Mountains remote area. Peter Tippett ARN 124836
Sensible rules, and rules only where required.
Ease of use . Clarity, ie not subject to various interpretations.
Minimal typos, errors and stuff ups - there are a good number in the drafts. Part 61 has many examples of these problems, which seem never to get fixed unless it causes a crisis.