aro

That seems to be the usual interpretation although I think the regulation reads differently. The CAR 206 says flying, for the purpose of aerial photography is commercial. It doesn't say anything about payment. If I read strictly I think it says any flight where the purpose of the flight is to take photos from an aircraft (air to ground or air to air) is commercial according to CAR 206. It doesn't matter what happens to the photos afterwards. Conversely, it seems like if the purpose of the flight was not photography, i.e. you were flying from one place to another you should be free to sell photos taken along the way. Making it more murky and confusing is CAR 2(7)(iv) which says "aerial photography where no remuneration is received by the pilot or the owner of the aircraft or by any person or organisation on whose behalf the photography is conducted" is a private operation. CAR 206 defines when an AOC is required, CAR 2(7)(iv) defines private operations that can be performed with a private pilots license. So I don't understand how these interact - does it mean that operations under CAR 2(7)(iv) can be performed by a private pilot, but require an AOC??? I'm not sure which definition of commercial/private is used for RAA - CAR 206 or CAR 2(7) so the original statement might be correct if RAA is exempt from the requirement for an AOC?

The circumstances where cost sharing is relevant are actually quite limited. It is basically saying that if you ask for a payment for the flight everyone including the crew must share equally, and the number of people must be no more than 6. Curiously, it seem to prohibit asking for less than the equal cost of the flight, e.g. if you hire an aircraft for $300 and take a mate if he contributes $50. No one said this all makes sense.

Seems pretty clearly to be flying for the purposes of aerial photography which is a commercial purpose (airwork) under CAR 206. Who paid what doesn't make any difference in this case as far as I can see.

The tricky thing is that aspect ratio doesn't actually affect induced drag - despite what is taught. Induced drag is dependent on airspeed and wingspan. If you change aspect ratio while keeping wing area the same, the induced drag changes - because span must change to maintain the same area. This is the source of the misunderstanding that induced drag is dependent on aspect ratio - because comparisons are made between aircraft of similar wing area. An aircraft with a 10m wingspan and 1m chord will have essentially the same induced drag as an aircraft with a 10m wingspan and 2m chord (at the same weight and airspeed) despite one being 10:1 aspect ratio and the other 5:1. Of course if you need to pass an exam you need to learn the expected answers - even if they are not completely correct!

The glaze is what you are trying to create with the conditioning procedure. The glaze surface (plus I think material transferred to the disks) is what gives the friction and holding power. Light usage can wear the glaze layer away (rusty disks probably don't help). The brake companies suggest that rust on the disk surface itself will normally be removed by the braking action. From the article linked to above: If properly conditioned, the pads will have a uniform shiny appearance (glaze) on the surface. Conditioning removes high spots, and creates a layer of glazed material at the lining surface. Normal braking will produce enough heat to maintain glazing during the life of the lining. Glazing can be worn off during light use such as taxiing.

I don't know what sort of brakes the Savannah has, but one reason the brakes might be weak is that the pads need to be conditioned. The procedure is to get the pads hot, which creates a layer on the surface that gives higher friction. This link has the procedure for Matco brakes: http://www.foxbat.com.au/public/editor_images/Foxbat%20Documents/11%20Matco%20brake%20conditioning%20procedure.pdf

GPS altitude is generally far less accurate than horizontal position, for some reason to do with satellite geometry.

The issue is not about pilot competence, it is aboout complying with the law as it currently stands. CAO 95.55 gives an exemption from certain parts of the regulations on the condition that the pilot is a member of RAA and has a valid pilot certificate. If you try to claim CASA are not allowed to do that, you might throw out the whole exemption rather than the requirement for a pilot certificate. If anyone can fly aircraft that are not required to comply with certain regulations, what is the point of those regulations? The exemptions were negotiated by the then AUF for their members. This is why the exemptions specify that you must be a member and have a valid pilot certificate.

302 is under Miscellaneous not Infringement Notices?? It seems pretty clear that it is referring to documents relating to the aircraft e.g. certificate of registration, airworthiness certificate, log book, maintenance release, POH etc. It is drawing a long bow to suggest that includes flight planning information for a particular flight. Maybe a court could be convinced, but I think they would be wrong and this is not the intent of this section. Is there any section that sets out the form a flight plan or fuel plan has to take, or that it has to be in an enduring form? "70 miles, 120 knots, 40 l/h, 160 litres on board... that ought to cover it" is a fuel plan. You can do it in your head, and people are doing it every day for private flights. It's hard to produce evidence of this after a flight, apart from the fact that you didn't run out of fuel. 296J seems to say that even if the matter can be dealt with by an infringement notice they don't have to, they can take you to court instead - but I'm not sure of the relevance?

Yes, 32AK allows them to detain an aircraft for the purposes of an investigation. Is a ramp check an investigation? Do they need to satisfy any grounds before starting an investigation? What is a "reasonable period"? I am interested to know whether the people conducting ramp checks are usually appointed investigators or simply authorised persons. CAR50D is in relation to Aircraft Maintenance Log Books, not flight plan and fuel calculations. Part 4A - Maintenance -> Division 10 - Aircraft Log Books -> 50D Inspection of Records. It only applies where you are required to "keep or retain a record" so presumably doesn't apply to anything you are allowed to discard after a flight. CAR 227 allows admission to crew compartment in flight during air service operations. It doesn't appear to apply to your typical private operation.

And I think the CASA rep is making stuff up.

By my reading of IIIA, an investigator can only require you to answer questions when you are on premises where a magistrate has issued a warrant. CAR 6 allows an authorised person to: Inspect the maintenance release Inspect aircraft log books Investigate defects in an aircraft Inspect your license Inspect the aircraft I haven't found where they can require you to answer questions, or ask you to produce anything else.

Probably the AIP SUP e.g H06/15 https://www.airservicesaustralia.com/aip/current/sup/s15-h06.pdf

Please supply a reference to a regulation that says that you cannot carry an expired chart.

They can't weigh the fuel you burned to get there. It may be hard to prove that you flew direct rather than stopping on the way without relying on what you tell the investigator. Regardless of how much you deserve it, I'm just wondering whether there is any protection against self incrimination in Australia. Are you permitted to get legal advice before answering questions?

I can't find any examples where powerlines show height AGL on a map. Can you give an example? I know someone hit a powerline across the valley at Eildon, but I don't see any information in the WAC that suggests that powerline is more of a danger to aircraft than any other.

Interesting... so if during a ramp check you admit to eg. flying overweight and without the required fuel reserves, CASA have to find independent evidence of that? Or can they use your answers as evidence of wrongdoing?

I think they are making stuff up. I can't see any regulation that forbids carrying an out of date map. You are required to carry the latest editions of maps, but as long as you have them there is nothing stopping you from also carring an out of date map. Your post prompted me to look up the regulations. The wording is interesting, it suggests that you are required to carry ALL the maps and charts applicable to the route, not just what is required for navigation. So for a flight out of e.g. Moorabbin you probably need PCA, WAC, VNC, VTC, TAC and ERC-L to be strictly legal.

Not really different I suspect... as with an aircraft, there is certain documentation you are required to keep and police can ask you for that. They can use information in that to prosecute you. You don't necessarily have to answer general questions arising from that e.g. "Your logbook shows that you left X 3 hours ago. That is over 270km from here - you could not have travelled that distance without exceeding the speed limit at some point. What speed did you travel at through the towns enroute?"

I suspect most private flights are deficient in some area. For example, how many of us always weigh their passengers? We are required to use actual weight for W&B calculations, how do you do that if you haven't weighed the passenger? I don't think that "He didn't look too heavy" is a valid method of weighing. Also, how many could answer how they determined the CG would be within range before flight? As far as I know you need to show either calculations or a system of loading. There was an interesting article on Avweb about ramp checks in the USA, in particular whether you have to answer questions about your previous flight: http://www.avweb.com/news/features/Legal-Issues-for-Pilots-221888-1.html "The moment an inspector asks you about something that happened in the past it’s no longer just a ramp check, it’s an investigation." ... "You do not have to answer investigation questions." I think the idea is that you are not required to provide information that could be used as evidence against you, if they decide to prosecute you for something. I wonder whether the same principle applies in Australia? It is interesting to contrast this with the information CASA claim you are required to provide. I'm not sure what CASA's reaction would be if you declined to tell them where you flew from without legal representation... If you are pulled over in a car by the police they typically do not ask you where you came from, what time you left and the maximum speed you travelled at.

That chart looks like absolute garbage. Swimming: 1 in 1,000,000. So how do we get 60+ drowning deaths while swimming/year in Australia? Parachuting, if you check the references is 1 in 101,083 jumps. I am sure that hang gliding is not 1 in 560 flights, which would be the comparable statistic. In fact, according to one of the references parachuting and hang gliding statistics are very close: 0.1786/100 particpants vs. 0.1754/100 participants. It just looks like a collection of numbers, with no attempt to make them comparable to each other.

One problem with this theory is that the body can tolerate much greater forces in a fore-aft direction than sideways. Sideways or twisting forces are much more likely to do internal damage. Landing into the wind is very important. The likelihood of death/injury goes up VERY quickly with increasing speed of impact.

Please press CASA for an answer backed by references to the actual legislation etc., not just a yes you can/no you can't answer without any supporting information.

CASA have the power to write whatever regulations they like, so using RAA as a conduit is just inefficient (or a way of avoiding legal, parliamentary etc. scrutiny that they get when they write their own regulations). That's a side issue however - I'm still looking for where these restrictions on 19 reg. that supposedly exist can be found. My gut feeling is that they are someones imagination/wishful thinking.

AC21-11(1) relates to 101-28 ABAA registered aircraft, these are 28- registered in RAA. This basically predates the GA Experimental rules that we now have, and was how you built an amateur built aircraft in the "old days" before the experimental category. In the GA world these ABAA aircraft are treated the same as certified aircraft in many ways e.g. LAME maintenance required, but less restrictions on flight. I don't think it is possible to build under ABAA any more - and if it is I don't know whether anyone would do it. These are the aircraft referred to in CAO 95.55 1.2 (a) an aeroplane to which Order 101.28 applies that complies with the design standards specified in that Order Ultimately peoples "understanding" of the rules should not matter. What is important is what the rules actually say. "Darren/Lee/Someone from CASA says you can/can't..." is how RAA got into trouble with the audit in the first place. People saying what their "understanding" was, without actually verifying what the rules actually say. And yes, the same thing happens in the GA world. CASA seem to have missed the point of the first "S" in SASAO. If they want to write the rules, they should just go ahead and do it. If they want to delegate, delegate.