aro

And I think you will find that CASA's view of the reg is that it must be approx equal cost share.

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.

 

 

An earlier quiz question was about Aspect Ratio.Question was:-

Aspect ratio refers to the ratio of.

 

a Wing span to chord line. The greater the ratio, the less the parasite drag and manouverability.

 

b Half the wing span to the chord line and the greater the ratio the greater the induced drag.

 

cWing span to chord line and the greater the ratio the less the induced drag.

 

d Wing span to chord line and the greater the ratio the greater the induced drag.

 

I don't know what CASA considers the definition of Aspect Ratio, but whoever set these questions doesn't seem to have any idea of what it is.

 

Would you agree?

 

What is your definition of Aspect ratio?

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 pads are still good but I will sand the surfaces to remove the glaze from the rusty discs and see where I go from there with a fluid change, apart from full power check they don't really get a lot of use which is most likely a big part of the problem, we find the Savannah generally stops quick enough with full flaps being they are the whole length of the wing we generally land on first stage then put it on full on touch down that seems to work well for us

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.

 

 

I did the response on the fly...check out CAR302(2) (2) The owner or pilot in command of any aircraft shall, on demand, produce or cause to be produced for inspection by an authorised person, any certificates, licences, log books or other documents relating to the aircraft and, if it carries passengers or cargo, the list of names of the passengers or the bills of lading and the manifest, as the case may be.

 

While the division is titled "infringement notices", (1) headings are not part of statutory interpretation and (2) look at 296(J).

 

My view is that "relating to the aircraft" will be read broadly in recognition of the overarching obligation to safety to include a flight by the aircraft.

 

The CARs are hard enough to work through but the CASRs are even harder.

 

Kaz

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?

 

 

But s32AK applies to "this Part" which includes other than under warrant.

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.

 

CAR 50D covers power to inspect any records required to be made...eg flight plan and fuel calculations.

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.

 

 

Sorry, came from the CASA rep.

And I think the CASA rep is making stuff up.

 

 

"Investigators" are dealt with in Part IIIA of the Act. Note that "premises" is given a very wide meaning in section 3.The CAR Reg 6 appoints "authorised persons" and Reg 6A sets out what regs they can be appointed to act under. Some of these regs are now dealt with in the CASR of course.

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.

 

 

I havnt had a chance to ask Airservices yet. What I was told was, that they supply an update document with the changes, you then pencil them onto the WAC map, hence then judged as up to date.WAC map only!

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

 

 

I was only referring to sports aircraft.VTC, etc are not required, but if you carry them they must be current.

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

 

 

The investigator will then have cause to check your reserves and weigh your load and do a thousand other things to stitch you right up which, if you have done those things you no doubt deserve....

If the investigator asks you what your planned reserve was and finds you have misled him/her you will be in more doodoo.

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?

 

 

It's actually so changes don't kill you - like a high tension cable strung across a valley.

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.

 

 

It is an offence to refuse to answer an investigator's questions even if it might self-incriminate, though a response to such a question can't be led in evidence. Obviously, it can be used to point the investigator to documentary or physical evidence adverse to the person questioned.

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?

 

 

The reply was that if I carry a map it has to be current! And is ILLEGAL to carry an out of date map.

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.

 

 

But if you are in a truck..............

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 couldn't think why any pilot would be concerned about a ramp check, given that he/she would normally be well equipped and planned for a long flight.On the other hand I would be more nervous about an aircraft check because there is always something coming loose or a difference of opinion on what the regulation intended the specification to be.

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.

 

 

Fascinating chart of risks. Some surprises...

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.

 

 

The question has been asked of CASA and we will wait to hear back.

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.

 

 

I spoke to some L2's and a L4 at the time and got my understanding from them..... The closest I can find now is AC 21-11(1) and it clearly(ish at least to me) doesn't relate to 19 registered aircraft under RAAus control. I said Darren and I were of a like mind, but honestly what mind we are of becomes immaterial because the regulator will provide his view, the only one among all of us who post here that actually matters a damn.

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.

 

its our words...right up to CASA wants them changed.

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.

 

 

Once an aircraft meets the definition in the CAO it can be placed on the RAA register and it remains registered FOREVER but only permitted to be operated when the requirements of the RAA annually are complied with - annual RAA aircraf processes are not a registration each year but akin to an annual revalidation.

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.