The reason for Australia's new registration requirements

In CASA's letter of 21st September, announcing the new registration procedures, CASA'a said

"CASR Part 47 is being introduced because there have been too many incidents in which vital safety information (such as Airworthiness Directives) has not been passed on by the Certificate of Registration holder to the person controlling the airworthiness and maintenance of an aircraft."

Really? I do not believe this statement. Here's why.

CAR 38(4) provides that it is a very serious offence not to pass on such information. The maximum fine for failing to do so is the greatest there is for a breach of the CARs, in excess of $25,000.

I wrote to Richard Yates, Assistant Director, Aviation Safety Standards (the author of the letter) on 30th September 2000 asking how many such incidents there had been and whether any of the guilty had been prosecuted. Despite an acknowledgement, and several excuses, as at 9th December I had not received an answer.

I finally received an answer on 15th December 2000. That happened because Martin Ferguson, the Shadow Minister, put a question on notice in Parliament to the Minister on 5th December 2000. Thank you, Martin, for helping us ordinary every-day pilots

CASA's letter to me on 15th December admitted that no-one had been prosecuted for failing to pass on such information.

If people are not obeying the present law, why on earth will they obey the new law?

The maximum fine under the Civil Aviation regulations is a bit over $25,000. But anyone who fails to maintain his or her aircraft runs a far greater risk - namely that of injury to family, friends, or self PLUS the risk of a lawsuit from any injured person. Damages in excess of a million dollars are not uncommon, and insurance is no protection for a person who breaks the law - because every insurance policy provides an exclusion in the event of a breach of air law. So the threat of a successful liability claim is a far greater deterrent to failure to maintain an aircraft properly than is a (relatively) paltry fine of $25,000.

There are numerous incorrect mailing addresses on the Aircraft Register. If CASA were serious about getting that "vital safety information" to the people who need it, CASA would ensure that the addresses on the register were correct, so that information such as Airworthiness Directives actually reached owners. Don't tell me this is all the fault of the owners, because in most cases CASA already has their current address (as a pilot) or could easily find it out. As an example, one of the addresses on the Register which is wrong (at 9th December 2000) is that for Mike Valentine, whose address is shown as C/- Canberra South Motor Park. Mail sent to that address is returned by the Dead Letter Office. Mike is a CASA officer.
Assuming that the infamous latter of 21st September 2000 was sent to everyone on the register, large numbers of copies would have been returned to CASA. If CASA was so keen to get that "vital safety information" to everyone, you'd think CASA would have done something about the returned letters, wouldn't you? But it's easy to see that nothing was done, because if it was then Mike Valentine's address would have been corrected.