CASA new conditions on reg 143, 144 (Feral Animal Eradication)

General stuff that gets thrown about when Helicopter Pilots shoot the Breeze.
Wunma
New Member
New Member
Posts: 6
Joined: Sep 2013

CASA new conditions on reg 143, 144 (Feral Animal Eradication)

Postby Wunma » Fri Aug 4 2017, 00:42

I don't know if it is only new to me so please don't shoot me down (pun intended) but it seems that CASA coming in line with ICAO, has snuck some new conditions in on one of my marksman's new Carriage and Discharge Permission. Now limiting us to 5kg gross of ammunition 'packed in accordance with the ICAO Dangerous Goods Technical Instructions' and 'be stored in the approved aircraft baggage compartment'

I when down a worm hole trying to figure out what all this meant and basically it is a poor cut and paste job of the standard for carrying ammunition on RPT that is in no way applicable to our operation.

It's like they aren't even bothered trying to understand what we are trying to achieve..
User avatar
Dunker
Silver Wings
Silver Wings
Posts: 19
Joined: Jul 2007

Re: CASA new conditions on reg 143, 144 (Feral Animal Eradication)

Postby Dunker » Sun Aug 6 2017, 01:14

Definitely a Dangerous Goods issue. Maybe CASA are just reviewing or tightening CASR 92. Not sure.

Are you saying 5kg of ammo per person, in checked baggage, isn't enough ammo for you? Or are you saying the way your permission is written it means you can't have any ammo in the cabin, therefore you can't carry out your job? If you have permission under CAR 144 to discharge a firearm while onboard an aircraft, it follows that you must have ammunition in the cabin (ie, in the magazine) to actually discharge! You're right, the IATA limit of 5kg per person, in checked baggage, is there mainly for charter and RPT passengers, and has no relevance to airwork such as culling.

If you want to carry more than 5kg per person you might now need to have a Dangerous Goods Manual (approved by CASA) which would then allow you to carry the ammo you need.

Maybe what CASA snuck in there should have been there years ago when they moved to CASR 92? Or maybe they have simply made a mistake.

Anyway, contact your local FOI and ask for an explanation. Let us know how you go.

Return to “On the Job”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest