> Oksana Gutteridge wrote:
>>> Oksana Gutteridge wrote:
>>>>> "Oksana Gutteridge"
gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:frcvuc$ov8$1@news.albasani.net...>>>>>>> Mitchell Schaeffer wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Sylvia Else"
wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:47d920b3$0$20462$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...>>>>>>>>> SR20GOER wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> "Sylvia Else"
wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> news:47d8db9d$0$23658$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...>>>>>>>>>>> MICK MULLER wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> From ABC news
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/03/13/2188944.htm?section=justin
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) says up to 3,000
>>>>>>>>>>>> light planes will be grounded across the country tonight
>>>>>>>>>>>> because of safety concerns.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> A spokesman says inspections are needed on the fuel
>>>>>>>>>>>> injection systems of the small planes, which carry between
>>>>>>>>>>>> four and 10 passengers. He says concerns about the planes
>>>>>>>>>>>> were raised last night by the
>>>>>>>>>>>> United States Federal Aviation Administration.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> He says no large commercial airlines are affected.
>>>>>>>>> "The FAA have received eighteen reports of fuel injection
>>>>>>>>> servo plugs, P/N 383493, that had loosened or completely
>>>>>>>>> backed out of the threaded plug hole on the regulator cover
>>>>>>>>> of the fuel injection servo." Where was the safety wire in
>>>>>>>>> all this? Particularly for those that
>>>>>>>>> had completely backed out of the hole?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Sylvia.
>>>>>>>> What about the poor coverage the AD received, I went to work
>>>>>>>> this morning and as I hadn't seen or heard it on the news I
>>>>>>>> had no idea about the it. A student who was ment to fly our
>>>>>>>> Arrow asked about it. Now I have 5 grounded aircraft to deal
>>>>>>>> with, all with bookings. We can't even fly our Seneca (remote
>>>>>>>> base) to a LAME to get it checked!!!! How about CASA helping
>>>>>>>> us out with a time limit to get it checked. I guess their
>>>>>>>> other motto is true........... "CASA we're not happy til your
>>>>>>>> not happy" Mitchell
>>>>>>>> "
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, actually telling anyone doesn't seem to be part of the
>>>>>>> process. Now, here's the result of some legal research I've
>>>>>>> done. Before
>>>>>>> anyone acts on this I suggest they get confirmation from CASA.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The AD is issued under subregulation 39.001(1) of the Civial
>>>>>>> Aviation Safety Regulations.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_reg/casr1998333/s39.001.html
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Subregulation (5) in there says
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "(5) An airworthiness directive issued under subregulation (1)
>>>>>>> is a legislative instrument for the purposes of the Legislative
>>>>>>> Instruments Act 2003 ."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So moving on to that legislation:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/lia2003292/s12.html
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So it's clear that the AD takes effect on the date it says,
>>>>>>> which is the 14th March.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But....
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "(2) A legislative instrument, or a provision of a legislative
>>>>>>> instrument, has no effect if, apart from this subsection, it
>>>>>>> would take effect before the date it is registered and as a
>>>>>>> result:... "(b) liabilities would be imposed on a person (other
>>>>>>> than the
>>>>>>> Commonwealth or an authority of the Commonwealth) in respect of
>>>>>>> anything done or omitted to be done before the date of
>>>>>>> registration." On my reading, this means that provided the AD
>>>>>>> hasn't been
>>>>>>> registered, a person can ignore it with (legal) impunity.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So has it been registered?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A quick check of the Federal Register of Legislative
>>>>>>> Instruments, which is the authoritative source indicates that
>>>>>>> it hasn't. In addition, on looking at some others, it seems to
>>>>>>> me that there's usually a period from weeks to a month or so
>>>>>>> after issue before an AD gets registered.
>>>>>>> Of course, ignoring ADs is not the way to stay healthy. If
>>>>>>> anyone intends to follow this legally technical path, I assume
>>>>>>> that they'd at least do the hand tightness test first, which I
>>>>>>> suppose they can legally do, since it doesn't involve undoing
>>>>>>> anything. Sylvia.
>>>>>> You may be right about this, but the problem was given coverage
>>>>>> by the ABC - even I heard it!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Anyone who chooses to play Don Quixote would be in some
>>>>>> difficulty if a plane for which they were responsible fell out
>>>>>> of the sky.
>>>>> True, but what if you got home from work after 1930 last night,
>>>>> ABC news is over and I didn't see it on the Channel 10 late news.
>>>>> A bit more coverage by CASA would have been a good idea.
>>>> Yes, but how do you actually do that in the real world? A similar
>>>> case was the flaw in the fuel system of a car which could, in
>>>> certain conditions, cause a fire. The consequences of such an
>>>> event in some situations might be very bad. How does the car
>>>> manufacturer get the message across to every car-owner involved?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I don't see how this is relevant. Since the AD is a legislative
>>> instrument, its content is a matter of law, not fact. It makes no
>>> difference whether a person knows about the AD - they have to comply
>>> with it regardless - once it's been registered.
>>
>> In a case like this, a person cannot comply if they do not know that
>> there is a requirement to comply.
>
> Maybe CASA intended to notify all those affected by the AD before
> registering it, and didn't expect it to be picked up by the media.
>
> As an aside, and relating to drafting, the effect of s12(2) appears to
> be that any instrument that imposes liabilities, and which purports to
> become effective before it is registered, is ineffective, not just
> prior to registration, but forever.
>
>
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/lia2003292/s12.html
>
> What the draftsman presumably intended was that no one shall be
> subject to any liabilities arising from actions performed before the
> date of registration.
I don't think it annhililates the instrument, just prevents it having effect
before that event. It's a question of interpretation, and your
intrepretation is open. But it is more likely to be read down, and not
annhililated, on the ground that it is better that the instrument have some
effect than that it fail completely. That's a respectable approach.
