aro

I'm not convinced that CAR 206 defines private operations at all.

 

CAR 206 defines Commercial Purposes "For the purposes of subsection 27(9) of the Act". Subsection 27(9) deals with the purposes for which an AOC is required - not the requirement for a commercial license.

 

CAR 5.78 defines what a Private Pilot License allows you to do "to fly an aeroplane as pilot in command, or as co-pilot, while the aeroplane is engaged in a private operation" with the note:

 

"Paragraph (d) of subregulation 2(7) sets out the operations that are classed as private operations."

 

It appears to me that paragraph (d) of CAR subregulation 2(7) defines private operations, not CAR 206.

 

The assumption that private operations are operations that are not commercial seems incorrect. CAR 206 lists:

 

(ii) aerial spotting;

 

(iii) agricultural operations;

 

(iv) aerial photography;

 

as commercial operations.

 

Subregulation 2(7) paragraph (d) lists

 

(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;

 

as private operations.

 

This seems to say that e.g. agricultural operations on land owned and occupied by the owner of the aircraft are commercial operations that require an AOC, but can be performed with a private pilots license. It seems clear that an operation can be both commercial and private.

 

Subregulation 2(7) paragraph (d) also lists

 

(i) the personal transportation of the owner of the aircraft;

 

as a private operation, which seems to mean that transportation of the owner of the aircraft is definitely a private operation. There doesn't seem to be any restriction on what the owner does at the destination, except that CAR 206 says that carriage of goods property of the pilot, the owner or the hirer of the aircraft for the purposes of trade requires an AOC.

 

I don't know the definition of "goods for the purposes of trade", but it seems that it must be goods for sale, not just tools of trade. If CAR 206 includes tools of trade it would seem, for example, that a commercial pilot was forbidden from carrying a pilot's tools of trade without an AOC. Or if you assume a pilot is somehow exempt, what about a salesman carrying a mobile phone on a flying holiday? How far do you extend tools of trade? Do I need an AOC to check work email at my destination, if I carried my smartphone with me?

 

Whether this is how CASA interprets these regulations I don't know, but that is how I read them. Ultimately, it is CASA's interpretation that matters, until you are prepared to pay a lawyer to go to court and challenge them.

 

 

CASA CAP on AFR'shttp://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:OLDASSET::svPath=/download/CAAPs/ops/,svFileName=5_81_1.pdf

12. What aircraft should I use?

 

12.1 The CARs clearly state that a flight review must be conducted in the aircraft in which the pilot had flown the most flight time during the last ten flights undertaken. In most circumstances this would probably represent the flying activities that the pilot generally conducts.

Unfortunately, the CARs don't actually say what the CAAP says they say:

 

CAR 5.81

 

(2) An aeroplane flight review must be conducted only by an appropriate person and, unless the person otherwise approves having regard to the circumstances of the case, must be conducted in:

 

(a) an aeroplane:

 

(i) of the type in which the pilot flew the greatest amount of flight time during the 10 flights the pilot undertook as pilot in command immediately before the flight review; and....

 

(Emphasis mine)

 

Which means the instructor can approve using a different aircraft type. I don't see any limitations on the circumstances, some examples that come to mind (not referring to any specific aircraft) might be:

 

• the instructor doesn't want to use an amateur built aircraft
   
   
  
• the instructor's insurance doesn't cover the aircraft
   
   
  
• the instructor is not familiar with the aircraft type
   
   
  
• the aircraft doesn't allow the instructor to review the pilot to their satisfaction
   
   
  
• another aircraft would allow more advanced material to be covered etc.
   
   
  

 

 

I tried to find a reference in the RAA ops manual etc. about use of amateur built aircraft for instruction of the builder/owner, but I couldn't find anything referring to it. Can anyone point me to the actual rules covering this?

 

 

If doing a GA AFR it MUST be done in the aircraft that you have done most flying in over the past two years.

Must, unless the person conducting the review approves otherwise... so it's actually pretty much at the instructors discretion.

 

 

Maybe it's my prejudices, but I suspect CASA would fight a case harder than an insurance company. I suspect CASA would be happy to fight in court, with as many taxpayer funded lawyers as required, whereas an insurance company would be more inclined to settle.

 

I can imagine there could be difficulties suing the estate of somebody who has been dead 5 years. Your first battle might be finding an insurance company that would admit to covering liability for the case.

 

If you were the lawyer, and had the choice to sue CASA, Barry Hempel's estate or the doctors, which do you think is most likely to deliver the best result for your client?

 

 

I suspect that the reason the doctors are being sued is not because they are any more responsible than CASA or Barry Hempel, but because they have insurance companies behind them who are perhaps more likely to settle.

 

 

Your view may be influenced by being involved in large cases - but I think they are a minority.

 

I'm talking about smaller cases, where the plaintiff would probably be very happy with a few tens of thousands as a settlement. No-one hires experts, no-one pays for a detailed investigation of the incident, and probably both sides minimize the number of actual lawyers involved. Most of the case is conducted by correspondence.

 

Unless the sums involved are large, the insurance companies don't want to get involved in arguing duty of care and negligence in court. If the case is settled, both sides can claim a win in their weekly meeting:

 

Plaintiff's lawyers: "We got a payout of $50,ooo for Joe Bloggs, which given the facts of the case is a good result."

 

Insurance company: "We settled the Joe Bloggs case for $50,000. He was seeking $500,000 so we view this as a good result."

 

Your cleaning gutters example is wrong. There is no guarantee that you will stay out of trouble. If he is injured, you might be sued. Insurance will probably pay out, if he will settle for a sum that makes it too expensive to go to court.

 

 

I do have a somewhat cynical view of the legal system, although I don't extend that to all lawyers. I am sure a few give the rest a bad name. And please don't ask me to listen to Andrew Bolt :-)

 

One major problem is that the legal system is heavily weighted towards those with money, and those with power. Additionally, the people who make the choice to sue (or prosecute) have a distinct advantage as well - simply because they have that power to choose.

 

I go back to my previous point however: what percentage of cases are settled without going to court? What influence do judges have over that, or the merits of the cases? The insurance companies probably can't be sure what actually happened, so in most cases they figure its safer to pay out a (relatively) small settlement than gamble on taking it to court. The personal injury lawyers know that, so push for as much as they can get before the insurance company decides it is worth fighting. Besides, getting money from an insurance company for an injured person can't really be wrong can it? That's what insurance is there for ;-)

 

I actually do admire the legal profession, and there are many lawyers who do very good work. Unfortunately, sometimes money or expediency overrides justice. But my main argument is with the assumption that a case must have merit, or it would not exist.

 

 

The lawyers wouldn't even look at anything which didn't have an element of a duty of care owed and breached.

You seem to have a rather naive view of the legal system.

 

What percentage of cases are settled? If the case is settled, nobody has to prove anything. Most insurance cases seem to resemble a game of chicken more than Donoghue v Stevenson. Just because an allegation has been made that there was a breach of duty of care doesn't mean it happened - but generally, neither side wants to fight in court.

 

I don't know anything about this specific case, but in many cases it appears that the lawyers look for soft targets with money (preferably insurance) rather than the party actually responsible. They figure the best result for their client is a payout from somebody, rather than a judgment against somebody else who might never actually pay.

 

 

So if I try to step through this problem:

 

1. Assume the aircraft is moving forwards. It will have drag opposing this motion.
    
    
   
2. For forward velocity to be constant, there must be a forward force opposite and equal to the horizontal drag force.
    
    
   
3. Assume that the fuselage and stabilisers and everything but the main wings create no forward force. (?)
    
    
   
4. Sub-conclusion: therefore, the wings must apply a forward force to the aircraft. (?)
    
    
   

In a glide, the direction of movement is not perfectly horizontal, you have a downward component as well.

 

Drag is opposite the direction of motion, so in a glide it is not horizontal, there is an upward component.

 

As the direction of movement has a downward component, gravity is partially acting in the direction of movement, and in opposition to the drag component.

 

 

Another point, don't be in a hurry to touch down anyway.

 

At Jabiru speeds, in a normal landing you probably travel as far along the runway before touching down as you do after - maybe further.

 

 

1.3 * stall speed is a good rule of thumb, and certainly gives you an idea of how much margin you have in the recommended speed. However, there may be reasons the factory test pilot recommends something else, e.g control authority at lower speeds. The book figures are a good place to start.

 

Another point to note, the manual recommends 65KIAS, but according to the IAS->CAS table this is actually closer to 6o knots. That makes it about 1.5 * stall speed which suggests you still have a reasonable margin. (Again, according to Jabiru website, check specific aircraft POH)

 

 

I'd like to be able to plant it right where i am aiming.

You will always fly past your aim point. Your aim point is only for the purposes of the approach, then you level out and flare, and you will always fly past it - how far depends on your speed. In a short field landing you will be slower, and won't fly as far past, but you will still fly past (unless you have a very abrupt arrival!) If you need to touch down exactly at a particular spot, you will adjust the aim point to a point before the actual touchdown spot.

It does sound like you are a little too fast. If you are too fast the aircraft will be more sensitive to your back pressure, and more likely to climb again, which both mean it is easy to end up too high in the flare. The J170 manual online at the Jabiru site recommends 65KIAS for the approach speed, so that is the speed I would be aiming for (check your aircraft POH), preferably stable on speed by 200 feet. Trying to slow from 70 to 65 "over the fence" will also make you high - speed and height are both energy, so you will just trade one for the other.

 

As for looking down the runway, the best advice I have heard is when the runway looks like a highway, look down the runway like you are driving a car. It's probably more like 3-400 metres ahead rather than the very end of the runway, but the important think is not looking right in front of the aircraft. It sounds like you have the idea there anyway.

 

I would not recommend using the flight simulator for this, the last 20 feet is probably the time when the flight simulator is least helpful in showing what you need to look at and feel. There is no substitute for practice in the aircraft.