----- From: Boyd Munro Sent: Tuesday, 10 September 2002 9:18 PM To: TOLLER, MICK Subject: New Reg 55A
Hello Mick,
The new Reg 55A seems to offer a very good solution to the Traditional Australian Flight Manual problem. Does it?
If so I hope you have a very good Press Release on the way, because it's very positive news. If I read it correctly both CASA and the Minister deserve praise for listening to the cries of those affected, and giving them a choice.
I recognise, and take into account, that approval under 55A will come at a dollar cost. But that is a decision a person can make for himself, it's not something forced on him (unless the dollar cost were to be so outrageous that there is not really a choice).
Bottom line, does S55A allow a CofR holder to present his Traditional Australian Flight Manual to CASA for approval?
Cheers,
Boyd
---- From: TOLLER, MICK Sent: 12 September 2002 04:30 To: Boyd Munro Subject: RE: New Reg 55A
Boyd,
I understand where you are coming from, but I'm afraid it is not that simple!
The amendments to regulation 55 and inclusion of a new regulation 55A are designed to allow CASA to approve a change to an existing Flight Manual to permit atypical or special operations. The intent of the regulation is not to allow CASA to approve an alternative Flight Manual.
Furthermore, I'm told that the ‘Traditional Australian Flight Manual’ is not a “flight manual” as defined in CAR 54, and CAR 55A does not permit CASA to approve the wholesale replacement of a Flight Manual (such as that issued by a Type Certificate holder) with something that is not a Flight Manual.
Therefore it follows that Regulation 55A cannot be used to approve a 'Traditional Australian Flight Manual' as an alternative to the required Flight Manual under Civil Aviation Regulation (CAR) 54.
Current Civil Aviation Regulations require a Certificate of Registration holder to use the Aircraft Flight Manual, including all amendments, issued by the Type Certificate holder.
The philosophy of the current system is for an aircraft to have, as the basic approved Aircraft Flight Manual, the manual that was developed by the holder of the Type Certificate. That Manual is approved by the Regulatory Authority, which issued the original Type Certificate.
The Flight Manual issued by the Type Certificate holder is updated by that holder. Any such amendments required by the Type Certificate holder to be incorporated, must be incorporated by the aircraft’s Certificate of Registration holder under CAR 55 (1). This way the responsibility rests with the type certificate holder to ensure changes are recognised in the Flight Manual.
Best wishes,
Mick
----- From: Boyd Munro Sent: 12 September 2002 11:23 To: TOLLER, MICK Subject: RE: New Reg 55A
Hello Mick,
I do not want to get into an argument with you. As you know I have considerable respect for you, much but not all of it stemming from the fact that you operate your own small aircraft at your own expense.
First, I want to say that I did not deliberately set up the present situation regarding Flight Manuals and Reg 55A. It might look as though I engineered a most machiavellian plot but I didn't. I read the new regulation and came to the conclusion that it solved the problem of Traditional Australian Flight Manuals - indeed I thought to myself that it was the most clearly-written piece of all the Flight Manual legislation. I then read the explanatory material and winced, thinking how inept it was in not coming right out and saying "This solves the TAFM problem". Hence my remark to you about the need for a good Press Release!
I was completely surprised to receive your e-mail today putting a different interpretation on 55A. I have looked at it again in the light of what you say, but remain of the opinion that it does permit the resuscitation of the TAFM. As you and I both know, the intent of the person who drafted it is irrelevant, it is what the regulation actually says that counts. The fact that a TAFM is not a flight manual within the meaning of 54 is also irrelevant because there is no requirement that any changes made under 55A be themselves Flight Manuals.
I see some practical difficulties ahead, principally what you might charge, the fact that a Reg 54 Flight Manual must exist in order to be changed, and that 55A(2) says "may" not "must". However on the basis of what I know at present I plan to persist with the 50-odd applications for change which I have made under Section 55A, and to seek review in the AAT if you refuse them or fail to act on them.
However I am acutely aware of what that will cost me in hours and dollars, so I certainly close no doors. One of your legal eagles may be able to persuade me that 55A does not mean what I think it means, in which case I will withdraw all the applications and apologise to the people on whose behalf I lodged them. I therefore invite you to get your Professor of Flight Manual Legislation to contact me for that purpose.
In addition, I shall make it very clear in further broadcasts on this subject that CASA's interpretation of the Regulation is very different from AIR SAFETY AUSTRALIA's.
Cheers,
Boyd