aro

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 I can't see any regulation that forbids carrying an out of date map.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to carry the latest editions of maps, but as long as you have them there is nothing stopping you from also carring an out of date map.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.

That's not entirely true - the CAO can be changed, and as far as I understand you need to be in compliance with the CAO as it exists at the time the flight takes place. The CAO also requires that you follow the RAA Ops and Technical manuals, so the RAA can basically write any additional restrictions they like - but with a quick look I didn't see anything there restricting modifications to 19 reg to the original builder.

Can you at least tell us which regulations you believe state this? from CAO 95.55: 1.1 This Order applies to a single-place or 2-place aeroplane that: ... (e) is mentioned in paragraph 1.2 1.2 For subparagraph 1.1 (e), an aeroplane must be 1 of the following: ... (e) an aeroplane, the major portion of which has been fabricated and assembled by a person who undertook the construction project solely for the person’s own education or recreation... 6 General conditions ... (f) in the case of an aeroplane to which this Order applies by virtue of subparagraph 1.2 (b), © or (f) — the aeroplane must not have been modified without the approval of CASA or of an authorised person for the purposes of regulation 35 of CAR 1988; (g) in the case of an aeroplane to which this Order applies by virtue of subparagraph 1.2 (a), (e) or (g) — the aeroplane must: (i) before its initial flight, have been inspected by a person authorised by CASA for that purpose; and (ii) if any condition or limitation has been imposed under paragraph 6.3 — be operated subject to that condition or limitation. If the limitation comes from 6(f), that does not apply to amateur built aircraft (subparagraph 1.2 (e) ) - only subparagraph 1.2 (b), © or (f). I am looking for something that applies only to the builder but I don't see it. It seems like another case of someone reading the regulations to mean what they think they SHOULD say, rather than what they actually say...

The student has a log book, but the school will be required to keep their own records as well. I would expect these to be more detailed than what is in the logbook - information about strengths/weaknesses, whether sequences have been completed satisfactorily etc. I think one of the criticisms out of the ferris wheel crash was about the adequacy of the particular school's student records.

5 The CFI of a flying school must not permit a student pilot of the school to undertake a solo flight in a Jabiru-powered aircraft unless the CFI has: (b) before subsequent solo flights by the student pilot at a flying school: (i) confirmed that the student pilot has competently performed engine failure exercises at the school in either the preceding 2 hours of flight time or 7 days, whichever is the more recent (ii) noted the competence in subparagraph (i) in the student pilot’s record, countersigned by the student. 5(b)(ii) is obviously designed to make compliance easily auditable even if there are no incidents - I am waiting for CASA to announce that they are conducting (or having RAA conduct) an audit, with the aim of shutting down schools that are not complying with this requirement.

Did they remove the radios already?

Solowheels look like fun. I suspect they are illegal in public places in Australia though... the same as Segways.

Multiple flights. According to the report I read, there wasn't even direct evidence of taking selfies on the accident flight, but it was concluded that it was the likely cause due to selfies on multiple previous flights.

If you read the Instrument it sets out "Operating Limitation for Jabiru Powered Aircraft". Operating limitations affect the operator, not the manufacturer, and the Instrument specifically says the "pilot in command of a Jabiru-powered aircraft" and "The CFI of a flying school" operating Jabiru powered aircraft. They are the direct parties in the Instrument.

Not true - the action is effectively between CASA and Jabiru owners and operators. CASA haven't put any restrictions on Jabiru's manufacturing (other than the obvious problem of selling aircraft with these restrictions on operators). The restrictions apply to the operaton of existing aircraft. Jabiru itself is just the company that the Jabiru owners and operators hope will fix the problems. Jabiru could easily decide that it's all too hard, and leave the aircraft manufacturing business altogether. It's probably the rational choice - trying to fix the problem risks spending a lot of money on testing and development, without any guarantee that you can satisfy CASA at the end of it. The biggest issue is that the problem seems so loosely defined that it could take years to gather enough data to say whether any particular fix is effective. The data we have seen showed a failure every 1500 hours, from memory - how long does it take to produce enough hours on enough engines (with whatever changes are proposed) to say whether that rate has changed? There are other important questions, like the distribution of failures - are they evenly distributed through the engine lifetime, or mostly early or late in the engine lifetime? Clusters in certain operators, or random? All these questions effect how you determine whether the problem is fixed. This is the type of information that people asking for statistics want - not just the number of failures which seems to have been all that has been provided.

Hmmm, yes it appears you are correct, according to the ops manual that form is for instructors without a class 2 medical. So the answer to the original question seems to be that you need a statement from your GP that you meet the health standard to drive a motor vehicle, and you must also comply with any conditions or restrictions that apply to your drivers license. I am still not convinced that RAA has the medical expertise to perform health assessments, I would rather see a requirement that instructors hold a class 2 medical and be done with it...

According to the RAA ops manual, all you need is a statement from your doctor that you are fit to drive a motor vehicle. No requirement for CASA involvement, DAMEs, or a Recreational Aviation Medical Practitioner's certificate. The questionnaire and examination form linked above appears to be something that someone has tacked on over and above what the rules say. (Not the first time that has happened, and why I continue with GA rather than the constantly moving goalposts of RAA.) Despite what the RAA ops manual says, I suspect that they would withhold your certificate if you only provided a statement from your doctor that you are fit to drive a motor vehicle without the questionnaire and examination form. I wonder whether RAA actually employs anyone qualified to evaluate these forms i.e. a medical doctor? That's because in aviation, many people operate according to their own opinion of what the rules should say, rather than what they actually say...