aro

These regulations are very confusing in the way they are interpreted. I am not even convinced that CASA's interpretations always follow the actual regulations. CAR 2(7) and CAR 206 are different things. CAR 2(7) defines private operations, i.e. what you can do with a PPL. CAR 206 defines operations that require an AOC. Totally different things. In this case, CAR 2(7) is easy to satisfy. You don't have to satisfy ALL the conditions, so flying in the course of the personal transportation of the owner of the aircraft ticks the box as a private operation. No need to look at schedules, advertising or who pays what etc. So why can't you advertise and sell tickets on a flight in the course of the personal transportation of the owner of the aircraft? It must be that CAR 206 also applies, regardless of whether CAR 2(7) classifies the flight as private. So you need to satisfy CAR 206. In this case I would suspect that 206(1)(b)(i) carriage of passengers or cargo for hire or reward and possibly 206(1)(b)(ii) carriage, in accordance with fixed schedules to and from fixed terminals, of passengers might be a problem. I don't know the legal definition of "hire or reward". I suspect CASA don't actually use the usual legal definition, but I don't know whether their definition is actually recorded anywhere or whether it's just their opinion at the time. Ultimately CASA's definition is really what matters, unless you are in court.

How do you know the right size?

Lawyers are familiar with the concept of blood from a stone, so if the insurance only pays out 250K and you don't personally have 18 million, they are unlikely to sue you for 18 million. If you do have 18 million, you probably shouldn't be relying on the RAA insurance policy... The real purpose of insurance is to convince the lawyers that they will be better off going after whatever the insurance will pay than you personally. 250K may or may not achieve that, based on personal circumstances. You might recall the recent case where a woman was injured by a light fitting while having sex in a motel on a business trip, and sued her employer. Why sue her employer not the motel, who presumably had more responsibility for the light fitting? Odds are, the motel didn't have an insurance policy, or the employer had a much bigger limit...

It is important to compare apples with apples... GA aircraft typically use avgas and (according to my understanding) the main reason for the fuel return is the greater likelihood of vapor lock when running mogas. Avgas vs. mogas also affects GA aircraft, e.g. there are more mogas STCs for high wing aircraft than low wing due to the increased concern about vapor lock when drawing fuel up from low wing tanks.

I'm still looking for evidence that the fuel pump can be operated incorrectly. I think the Vans RV12 also uses these fuel pumps, hard wired to run when the master is on. They state that the pumps are designed to run all the time, and there is a safety benefit when they are running and no benefit from turning them off.

The cooling is happening all the time - I suspect the thrust of the question was what is the difference between conditions where you get carb ice and conditions where you don't?

True. Ultimately, it is the airframe manufacturer's job to deliver an uninterrupted supply of fuel at the correct pressure to the carb. How they do that is up to them. Older 912 installation manuals don't have the instruction for the return line, unless you used an engine with the Rotax fuel manifold which included a return fitting. Obviously then you need to connect it to something. Changes beget changes, so adding a return line if it wasn't originally fitted creates other complications. For example, some fuel is returning to the tanks, so obviously the fuel system has to be able (and tested) to deliver more fuel upstream of the return line. How much more? Well, now you might need to measure how much is being returned to the tank... and so on. This I doubt... do you have any reference, e.g. Facet specifications or installation information? The Facet pump is automotive in origin, correct? No-one has a fuel pump switch in their car, they typically run continuously. A 912 at idle is still shifting a lot of air - I am sure it is using substantially more fuel than a similar size car engine idling at 1/2 the rpm without a big propeller on the front. I think the recommended fuse size is 3A, so that's only 40 watts or so of heat at 14V before the fuse blows. Shouldn't need much cooling to prevent damage.

I hope that is correct. This is an area where I am not comfortable interpreting the regulations. 99.465 Approved testers’ powers to access premises (1) Subject to any aviation security requirements, an approved tester must, at all reasonable times, have access to any place to which access is necessary for the purposes of carrying out any of the approved tester’s powers and functions under this Part. (2) A person must not prevent, or hinder, access by an approved tester to any place to which access is necessary for the purposes of carrying out any of the approved tester’s powers or functions under this Part. Penalty: 50 penalty units. (3) An offence against subregulation (2) is an offence of strict liability. So if CASA can't access your premises without either your permission or a warrant, is denying permission considered preventing or hindering access? What happens if you refuse permission to access your: hangar where you are performing an oil change? hotel room where you are planning your flight? home where you are building an aircraft? I agree it is very unlikely to be an issue, but I am wondering what these powers actually allow? e.g. if your neighbor gets fed up with all the riveting noise and reports to CASA that they have seen you enjoying a beer while you are building...

I think 2(a) is where you run into trouble. It seems to apply to anyone (except passengers) doing anything in an area accessible to aircraft on a certified or registered aerodrome. So not only can you be tested, but your friend just having a look could also be tested unless they are specifically there as a passenger. (3) is interesting - it seems to extend CASA testing to anywhere, e.g. your hotel or even home if you are performing a SSAA (flight planning, building a kit aircraft...). Not to suggest that it is OK to drink and plan or build, but it does seem a very broad power.

That's what I answered when I was asked that question by the testing officer when I did my PPL test. However, it is wrong, according to the testing officer. If the aircraft is provided by the employer and the employer does not charge anyone to be on the flight, it comes under CAR 2(7)(v) i.e. a private operation: (v) the carriage of persons or the carriage of goods without a charge for the carriage being made I think this must be a favorite question. However, if you own the aircraft and the employer reimburses you 3/4 of the cost, you are charging for the carriage so it is not private. CAR 2(7A) doesn't apply if it is the employer not the persons on the flight paying you. Most of the confusion seems to come from people applying "the vibe" rather than looking up the actual rules. PPL and RAA are restricted to private operations (plus a couple of additional restrictions for RAA). Private operations are defined in CAR 2(7)(d): (d) an aircraft that is flying or operating for the purpose of, or in the course of: (i) the personal transportation of the owner of the aircraft; (ii) aerial spotting where no remuneration is received by the pilot or the owner of the aircraft or by any person or organisation on whose behalf the spotting is conducted; (iii) agricultural operations on land owned and occupied by the owner of the aircraft; (iv) 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; (v) the carriage of persons or the carriage of goods without a charge for the carriage being made other than the carriage, for the purposes of trade, of goods being the property of the pilot, the owner or the hirer of the aircraft; (va) the carriage of persons in accordance with subregulation (7A); (vi) the carriage of goods otherwise than for the purposes of trade; (vii) flight training, other than the following: (A) Part 141 flight training (within the meaning of regulation 141.015 of CASR); (B) Part 142 flight training (within the meaning of regulation 142.015 of CASR); © balloon flying training (within the meaning of subregulation 5.01(1)) for the grant of a balloon flight crew licence or rating; or (viii) any other activity of a kind substantially similar to any of those specified in subparagraphs (i) to (vi) (inclusive); shall be taken to be employed in private operations. It doesn't appear too confusing to me if you look at the actual regulation.

Recordings of the transmissions were played on the TV news - I suspect someone recognized the voice. That seemed the most likely way at the time.

Seems unlikely. Why would CASA write a regulation that only allowed them to test employees? Maybe look at part 99C: Drug and alcohol testing by CASA. REG 99.115 Who may be drug or alcohol tested (1) An approved tester may require a body sample for the purposes of a drug or alcohol test under this Subpart from a person who is performing or available to perform an applicable SSAA.

I think people make too much of strict liability. They still have to demonstrate that the offence occurred. Strict liability just means that if they prove that the offence occurred, your excuses are very limited. If the offence is poorly defined it might actually make it more difficult to prosecute. However, I suspect that reg 256 deliberately does not exclude the case where the alcohol has left your system but you are still impaired. If your excuse for cocking up a radio call is "I had a couple of glasses of red last night and have had a shocking headache all day" you probably admitted to an offence, even if your actual BAC is 0.00. This is probably as it should be, if you accept that aviation is unforgiving enough that you should not be flying while impaired.

"capacity so to act is impaired" "by reason of his or her having consumed ... any alcoholic liquor" arguably includes being hung over, even if BAC is 0.00.

Charges are for IFR and using airports in CTA only I think. You seem to be mixing the requirements for IFR and CTA access together. VFR in CTA is a lot simpler than IFR.

I think people are over-egging the requirements for CTA here. Maybe their CTA experience is primarily IFR not VFR? PPL pilots are not trained to the level being described. ATC will not let you within cooee of the larger aircraft. If you want to get in their way, you will have to go somewhere OCTA like Mildura or even Sunbury. In radar contact you have 2 independent altitude sources (altimeter and transponder/encoder) so if your altimeter has an error it should be picked up, unlike OCTA. (Does anyone have a reference for the different instrumentation requirements in CTA - I can't find one other than the transponder.) Tracking - in radar, if you are off track ATC will let you know. Tracking and altitude is more difficult when operating OCTA at the boundaries than inside CTA where you have ATC monitoring and help. However, the path to CTA seems to exist already - convert RAA certificate to RPL and get the CTA endorsement. Surely that covers the requirements? This I don't agree with. What Don is describing already exists: the PPL and CPL. If that's the environment you want it is available to you. AUF/RAA came about because people wanted simpler qualifications, cheaper aircraft and maintenance and to be able to fly without a medical certificate. In return for this lighter regulation, restrictions on the size and weight of the aircraft were implemented, primarily to reduce the risk to other people: No more than 1 passenger A maximum weight limit A maximum stall speed in the landing configuration Limits on where you can fly e.g. OCTA, <5000 ft. These are specifically designed to mitigate the risks from relaxing the other regulations. There is a very real risk that in return for increased privileges, other regulations would be reintroduced e.g. if you have the same privileges, why would you have a different medical standard for RPL and RAA? If the RPL driver license medical is introduced for RAA, RAA is in big trouble. If you wanted to create a step by step plan to kill off RAA you could do worse than: Place restrictions on the aircraft used by flying schools to make them uneconomic Place restrictions on owner maintenance privileges Implement the driver license medical standard for RAA Provide an easy path from RAA to a GA qualification Allow LSA aircraft to be registered under GA (i.e. without recurring registration fees) Allow for owner maintenance of LSA aircraft under GA, using the USA as a model. #6 is the only one that seems unlikely, and that only due to certain attitudes within CASA.

16mm2 is pretty small - about 5mm in diameter. I can't imagine anyone using cable smaller than that for the starter?

Why do you exclude an emergency situation? That's exactly the situation where it's most likely to happen. Any normal situation you would go around rather than slip or dive at the top of the white arc. If you have an engine failure & are high and fast with a limited landing area - that is when you will have to make the choice. Easy to say all bets are off and do whatever is necessary, but if you exceed Vfe and one flap pushrod gives up the ghost all bets really will be off. Better to sideslip and have elevator buffet or pitch instability than asymmetric flaps at 85+ knots is my theory.

You missed the continuation: Your quote only applies to pre-1972 aircraft. Even then, given a choice of a possible uncomfortable pitch down and bending the airframe I would risk a slip. Weight makes a big difference in that type of maneuver. I suspect it wouldn't be at all difficult to exceed flap limits in a later model 172 with only 30 degree flaps when fully loaded. There are also many aircraft with low flap limits so it's not a good habit to teach without some consideration for the specific model.

I would think there is a requirement for a period after the notice of meeting where members can provide their resolutions. The assumption should be that before the notice of meeting is sent out the members are unaware of the meeting - and so cannot be expected to provide resolutions. Otherwise, you need a notice of a notice of meeting, with a defined period for resolutions to be provided before the notice of meeting is sent out. The intent of the constitution seems to be to allow members to notify resolutions after the member receives the notice - which makes sense. That doesn't seem to be the procedure being followed according to the response copied above.

If you're on the ground I don't see what the problem is? The nature of our flying means that sometimes weather means you don't go...

There is a distinct difference. "In the execution of all maneuvers, avoid abrupt use of controls" applies always, but doesn't prohibit abrupt use of controls. People do use controls abruptly from time to time, it's OK if the speed isn't excessive, but yes it should be avoided. "Abrupt use of the controls is prohibited above 98 knots" prohibits abrupt use of controls above manoeuvring speed. The distinction between above and below manoeuvring speed is obviously very important. It's not just an academic discussion when referring to flaps: C172 VFE is 85 knots "Do not exceed this speed with flaps down" (10-30 degrees) - i.e. prohibited Avoid slips with flaps - avoid, not prohibited. If you are too high in a forced landing and need to lose height, you might be making a choice between slipping with flaps out and exceeding VFE. The difference is important - "avoid" means it is not expected to damage the aircraft, whereas exceeding VFE could cause structural damage or failure. If you treat both as equally prohibited people are likely to pick the wrong answer and just push forward past VFE. In any case, how do you do a crosswind landing without a slip? The crosswind landing section refers to using flaps during sideslips with full rudder deflection, so it obviously is permitted.

Avoid is very different to "not permitted". e.g. "When flying in the outback, avoid flying during the hottest part of the day." or in the context of a 172 POH: "Abrupt use of the controls is prohibited above 98 knots" and "In the execution of all maneuvers, avoid abrupt use of controls"

There is? The only one I can find is when operating on L/R tanks with low fuel levels, but that is not unique to the 172. In fact it's more of an issue with low wings without the BOTH setting. Actually I can't find a limitation in any of the POHs I have looked at (admittedly not pre-1972). "Avoid" doesn't count as a limitation.

I don't have access to the member section* - I didn't realize they were secret members-only business. * I am an ex member, I learnt to fly with the AUF, but I let my membership lapse after frustration with the RAA bureaucracy. Apart form your medical, once you have your PPL CASA are actually much simpler to deal with than RAA.