Bill Hamilton

Darky, All aviation law in Australia is criminal law, and the definitions of offenses in the Civil Aviation Act 1988,the Civil Aviation Regulations and Civil Aviation Safety Regulations conform with the definitions in the Criminal Code. My previous posts have included details. The detailed logging of flight time for a pilot, or time in service for a aircraft, aeronautical part or component are covered in the regulations, as is the requirement for a pilot to keep a log book. All flight time is to be logged, and the actual time to be logged (flight time) is defined in the Act, and repeated in the Regulation. Once again, I have given detailed references in previous posts. For these purposes, we don't need to go into details of all the various category of pilot. Likwise, time in service must be measured as defined in the Regulations. I have already provided a precise reference. To what use the recorded time in service is put can very considerably, but the definition of time in service doesn't vary. Returning to the origin of this thread, loose expressions were used, such as TT from overhaul, sometimes called TSO, time since overhaul, and it is quite legitimate time to quote TT/TIS from overhaul. Nothing suggested that the overhaul was not legitimate. That didn't stop a few of you making it clear you didn't know what constitutes a legitimate overhaul. The original poster also took issue with the seller recording time in service with an air switch. So, where was the "dodgey hour meter"?? The seller's record is quite legitimate and conforms to the regulations (if manufacturer requires something else --- see previous posts re. Jabiru, record that as well as, not instead of). The aircraft owner was and is not required to treat engine runs, taxying, delays with the engine running as time in service, only airborne to touchdown, off to on. Total Time In Service, TTIS, is not defined in the regulations, and unless we wind up with turbine powered RAOz aircraft, something similar defined by a manufacturer, not CASA Act and Regulations, is very unlikely to come into question. In general terms, the only common occasion where total time in service is a factor, is a case where a manufacturer specifies a retirement life as well as a recommended time between overhaul. I have never personally come across this with a fixed wing piston engine or propeller, but it is common with turbine engines. There can be hours or cycles limits, both between overhauls and for retirement life. Retirement life is common for helicopter parts, rotors being one. The Crimes Act comes into the matter with log books and other technical records --- CASA and the DPP generally takes the view that any non-compliance, even as simple as getting a date wrong, is a falsification of records, "imposing on the Commonwealth", more simply called fraud --- as well as a breach of the CASA legislation. In the case of pilots log book and technical records, it is common to bring charges under both the Civil Aviation Act and the Crimes Act. In terms of the aviation or fair trading law --- where was the legal misrepresentation of the aircraft?? Nothing in the original post revealed anything that the seller had done wrong. Where is the misleading and deceptive conduct ?? Saying xxx hours since overhaul instead of saying xxx hours time in service since overhaul and thereby alleging "deceptive and misleading conduct is never going to get through the front door of any state department of fair trading. As I would hope is now clear, at least to some of you, is that it is really rather silly ( and potentially very, very expensive) to make defamatory statements about a person, demand he or she be outed, shamed etc, when all that is factually clear in this whole issue is that many of you have only the most tenuous grasp of what is required by regulation. Motzartmerv, What might you be suggesting, misleading and deceptive conduct ?? Even if I was a lawyer, I would be under no compulsion to reveal that on this site. Enough people on this site know who I am, W.J.R.(Bill) Hamilton, a member in good standing of Recreational Aviation Australia Inc. (and a few other organisations) not hiding behind an avatar, and have been around the the aviation arena for quite some time. I believe I have an adequate understanding of both the basic aviation knowledge required for the operation of small aircraft, including what "flight time" and "time is service" means in day to day aviation, and what can happen to you, if you don't have that basic knowledge. Instead of making snide remarks, why don't you try Google. I'm hiding in full view! Regards,

Turboplanner, In a rational world, and in a world of strict liability offenses criminal law, how can you possibly have an "opinion" that a simple definition of a technical term means anything else, than it clearly says. Do you understand the very limited defense to a strict liability offense under the Criminal Code? Particularly when the case law supports the statute meaning exactly what the statute primary and secondary legislation says, and is not subject to any alternative meaning ?? The definitions of "flight time" and "time in service" are simple and unambiguous. Certainly that is not true of much of our regulations, but in this case, there is no room for argument or opinion as to the regulatory meaning. davebutler, With all due respect, the above from your post is an accurate description of the content your post. Can I suggests that your use the legal references already supplied in previous posts, from the Civil Aviation Act 1988 and the Civil Aviation Regulations, to acquaint yourself with what is required to log pilot "flight time" and aeroplane or component "time in service". Then go and find out what an "engine overhaul" actually is, as opposed to what you obviously and, if I may say so, simplistically think it is. Or try telling the judge that the aviation law (no matter how difficult it might be) is "a lot of cp", and you are going to do it your way, and see how far that gets you. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Going right back to the original post, that started this thread --- and the reason I even bothered to submit a post On the face of it, the aircraft owner did not legally misrepresent the engine overhaul, he was quite entitle to quote time in service since the last overhaul as total time since overhaul. That total time in service since new was different (and not time in service since overhaul) didn't make the original description wrong. Further, the work done on the engine at "overhaul" is, on the facts presented here, a legitimate overhaul. As I have previously stated, in my opinion (and I have some considerable lay experience in the area) a number of the posts were seriously defamatory of the owner /seller of the aircraft. If nothing else, this thread illustrates the general paucity of knowledge of something that is simple and straightforward. And the very widespread misunderstandings of the place (if any) of variously actuated "Hobbs" meters, "tacho time" recordings, club/hirer charging practices, versus what is required of you by regulation. Legislation, breaches of which carry heavy penalties, not limited to fines and possible jail, but quite severe limitations on future travel outside Australia --- as a number of pilots and engineers have found out the hard way ---- being deported on arrival in the US, should be much better known and understood. It is human nature that nobody much likes or appreciates finding out that they are wrong, look at the Vatican reaction to Galileo. But Galileo was right !! And in this case, the legal definitions are right, there are no other acceptable definitions of "flight time" and "time in service", no matter how long standing and passionately held is your belief to the contrary. None of it is rocket science. Regards,

Folks, The last post has it in one. People who own and fly aircraft of any kind are very small in number. The proportion of that number, who want to live on an airpark is what percentage of that very small number. Its a lifestyle choice, not a real estate play for capital gain. Once you accept that "money" is not the driving force of the move, unless it's the aviation equivalent of a sea/tree changer, I would think it makes a rational decision easier. Regards,

Motzartmerv, Could you please let us all know how you can have varying "opinions" and "ideas" on black and white law, particularly where strict liability criminal offenses are involved. As I said in one post, 60kph is 60 kph, there can be no "opinion" or "idea" about it, it is what it is. There can be no "opinions" about what a pilot logs, or what time in service is, it's black and white definitions, well tested in the courts. Whether you like it or not, because something is called recreational doesn't make the slightest difference, as far as aviation law is concerned, the only exemptions for "recreational" aviation (whatever that means) are the limited number of exemptions that make RAOz possible, and that is it. You are not exempt from any other relevant provisions of the aviation law, a point that does not seem to be well understood, based on some posts on this thread, and what I have seen at several recent fly-ins, where there were a number of GA and RAOz aircraft. Mind you, the observed operations of the GA aircraft did not reveal any better understanding of what they should have been doing, as opposed to what they were doing. Wonderful Australian trait, deny the message, shoot the messenger. As a rather observant colleague has said: Aviation wise, the difference between Americans and Australian is that, if the Yanks don't like something, they will fight to change it. Australians will just ignore it. And then whinge like all get-out when they get pulled up. Regards,

ahlocks, I am well acquainted with legal framework of the exemptions that make the very existence of RAOz (or RAAu if you prefer) possible. Hopefully in the very near future, this legal framework will be far more effectively and clearly set out in CASR Part 103 and CASR Part 149, but don't hold your breath. Beyond the specific exemptions mentioned above, all the Australian aviation law, and relevant criminal law, applies to the operation of aircraft registered with Recreational Aviation Australia (or HGFA/GFA/ etc.) as Australian aircraft. That they are not VH- registered, and/or the pilot hold a "certificate" rather than a PPL or up, legally changes nothing. I am also well aware of the powers and duties of the Technical Manager, as described in the Operations Manual. None of that includes a power to change the the definitions of flight time or time in service. None of the above conflicts with the Tech. Manager's power to approve Systems of Maintenance (by whatever name) under the Operations Manual. However, that approval must, in itself, comply with the law, he can't make it up as he goes along. That an engine (or part or component) manufacturer may give instructions for continuing airworthiness based on a different time recording (Jabiru has been mentioned) does not change the definition of flight time or time in service. There is no such thing as "zero timing/zero timed" engine(s), short of a brand new engine, fresh out of the factory. "Zero timed" may (or may not) be a useful colloquial expression for an overhauled engine. However,it does not, in any way, describe one of the three possible processes that produce an overhauled engine. Notwithstanding the fact that the engine log shows zero time since overhaul. I have already given details of the three processes. TBO (time between overhaul) is more correctly/legally described as Manufacturer's Recommended Time Between Overhaul. It is not "mandatory", unless another regulation/legal approval imposes it. An example, for a certified engine, would be in use for operations regulated by CAR 206, but only then if it is Charter or Regular Public Transport. For certified aircraft see also AD/ENG 4. Clearly, all of the immediately above does not concern the aircraft, or engines, the subject of this thread. If you want to believe that stating the law as it is, as opposed to how you were "instructed/believed/were given to understand/any variation thereof" is pontificating, that's your privilege, but it doesn't change the law. As is very clear, I have no patience with arguments about a law that is clear and unambiguous, especially when it is with somebody who should have (indeed has a legal obligation to) read and understood that law, but wants to argue that it means something else. Most of the law that effects us in aviation is black letter law, and most breaches (rightly or wrongly) are strict liability offenses. It is always sad to witness the surprise, dismay, distress and, indeed, fear, when persons are faced with enforcement proceedings, having found out, in the hardest possible way, that "what they thought was OK/what was normal practice/what everybody else did" turned out to be none of the above ----especially when actually complying with the law was no more difficult than not complying. I witness it all to often. Unfortunately, the actions of CASA in the field seem to be blurring the proper separation of the duties of CASA, and the rights, obligation and duties of Recreational Aviation Australia, but if you are on the receiving end, that will not be a "get out of jail" card. There is absolutely no sense in giving "law enforcement" (which is not confined to RAOz or CASA, but may and often does include state police and other "authorities") a free kick. And then finding out that, once the facts are established, they have no real defense --- which is the whole point of strict liability offenses in the regulations --- bureaucratically quick, efficient and often terribly unjust and unfair enforcement. Regards,

DJP, Send me an email address, what might have been acceptable in the past doesn't cut it in the present "compliance" dominant style, in the current era of black letter law. Deadstick, Read what I have actually said across several post, then you will find I have already covered what you are raising as objections to or shortcomings in my comments, including how to handle a Manufacturer's Instructions for Continuing Airworthiness (by whatever name), when a time different to time in service, TIS, is required. TIS for an engine is not TTIS, but can legitimately be quoted from the last overhaul. Folks, also make certain you are talking about a fatigue life, and whether it is a mandatory limitation in a non-certified aircraft, versus a program of decreased inspection intervals as TTIS for the airframe mounts. "Design" fatigue life in any aircraft means little, unless the airframe is subject to extensive rig testing as a part of establishing that fatigue life. DJP has already indirectly touched on this point. Regards,

Folks, Don't forget Narromine, great place to fly, great people, great Aero Club, and the blocks are reasonably priced, and the whole development is somewhat more upmarket, compared to Temora. Scheduled airline services 30 miles away, and pax. rail from Dubbo. Evans Head is mired in all sorts of problems, the local Shire Council is very anti aviation, but those fighting the aerodrome's corner are very persistent people. Regards,

Deadstick and All, I really don't care what a "tech manager" says, the Civil Aviation Act 1988 and the Civil Aviation Regulations/ Civil Aviation Orders/CAAPs/CASRs/ACs trump any "opinions", tech. manager ,wreck manager or anybody else. If you are saying that you have been advised otherwise by somebody holding a tech. position with any organization, email me with the details, and I will sort it out quick smart. That goes for any of the self administrative bodies. The Act and Regulations definitions are really quite simple and unambiguous on this point, but apparently not simple enough for some. They are what they are, and not subject to "variation by opinion", no matter how passionately and misguidedly the said opinion is held. I have given you the precise references in the Act and the Regulations, and a couple of examples of how it works, just what more do you need to verify what the law actually says ---- and not what somebody thinks it says. I strongly suggest you forget "what you were told", "what you were given to understand" and any variation thereof, and actually acquaint yourself with the law. L-A-W as in LAW. If the posted speed limit is 60km per hour, it is 60 kph, there is no room for an opinion that it is something else. If your limiting weight for your aircraft ids 544 kg, it is 544 kg, an "opinion" does not make it any different, the regulated AUW is 544 kg., end of story. This is Criminal Law (all aviation law is criminal law in Australia) and the penalties are severe, both under the Civil Aviation Act 1988 and the Crimes Act 1900, and generally are Strict Liability Offenses. To understand Strict Liability see Division 6, S.6.1 of the Criminal Code Act 1995. Deadstick, If you are so certain that you are right, and the Act and Regulations are wrong, and as RAOz only administers "the regulations" (including exemptions) for CASA, for the aircraft covered by RAOz, I suggest you write to your local CASA office, copy CASA Compliance and Enforcement (whatever their current name) in Canberra/Brisbane, copy CEO/RAOz, and make your accusations. The current CEO of RAOz is an ex-CASA/CAA/DCA man, ie; an immense knowledge of the basic aviation law, try him with your opinion that the Act and Regulations don't mean what they say. As the CASA Director of Aviation Safety and CEO, John McCormick is a "black letter law" man, I suggest you copy him in as well. And see just how far you get. From an engineering/airworthiness standpoint, with reference to fatigue life, you are equally incorrect, but I suppose you are, at least, consistent. No RAOz type aircraft, to my knowledge, has a design fatigue life, and none of these aircraft are included (last time I looked) in the CASA Fatigue Life Airworthiness Directive. As you would expect,DJP is correct in what he says, these regulations have been the same for many years, the names of the Act and Regulations have changed from the old Air Navigation Act 1920 and associated Air Navigation Orders. At least one of the documents DJP mentioned has been repealed, but its content is reflected in new documents. We still have an Air Navigation Act 1920 and Air Navigation Regulations (with which every pilot should be acquainted, particularly re. noise), but pre and post 1988, they are quite different in content. DJP also helpfully and correctly defines "calender time", (not previously part of this thread) as it can apply to engine and prop. overhauls, and anywhere else a calender time may be limiting ---- but remember a day is a day, a year is a year, and neither are varied in length by opinions or understandings. It's all in plain vanilla BLACK LETTER LAW. But, Hey!!, you know better than the law, so carry on !! Because CASA or other enforcement is relatively rare in aviation, it always comes as a great shock to a person, when they cop a big fine, or jail time (as happened to an AUF member in Queensland), license suspension or other penalty, for doing what they did for years, in the mistaken belief that what they were doing was lawful. Just look at some of the unlawful behavior of several pilots at the last Natfly, who really spoiled it for the majority. I'll bet they thought what they were doing was OK. Oh!! Boy!!, were they wrong. Regards,

Bacchus, The definitions for an "engine overhaul" are (once again) in the CARs. There is quite a good CAAPs explaining the difference between an overhaul to OEM (factory new) limits and a service overhaul --- ie: an overhaul with all components within service limits, but not new components. Only components worn beyond service limits are replaced. If you buy a "factory re-manufactured" engine from either Lycoming or Continental, important bits like the crankcase may have done thousands of hours, but the logs that come with the engine will show zero time, you will have no idea of the total hours in service (TIS) of any of the components ---- unless they are a component with a life limit less than the recommended TBO for the engine --- a very unusual thing for a piston engine. There are some very interesting "dis-connects" between the manufacturers overhaul instructions, and what legally happens in practice, and what qualifies as a re-build (say, after a prop strike) and what is legally zero-timing an engine --- when an insurance company is involved, it gets "doubly interesting". All the talk of "re-manufactured to factory new tolerances" is "technically correct", but what you get is not the same as a "new manufacture" engine --- ie: all components are first life. On the other hand, with an overhaul to service standards, it is common (but not necessarily legally required) to show the total time in service, to which you will add the time since the last overhaul as you use the engine --- ie: the engine will (maybe) come with a log book the that show TIS and 0 hours TSO. One of the reasons I prefer an "overhaul" from a reputable overhaul shop (and there are some very good ones in AU, and some not so), rather than a "factory re-manufacture" is that I am likely to have a much better idea of the TIS of all the major components. I can't comment on a Rotax because I don't have a manual, so I can't translate into bureaucratese. Regards,

Vizla, What goes in the MT is I said above, wheels off to wheels on. See the definitions in CAR 2, Time In Service aka air time. No %, no tacho time,just the actual time from the wheels off the ground at takeoff to wheels on the ground at the end of the flight ----- there is absolutely NO fixed relationship between "flight time" and "time in service". It is "time in service" , aka air time, that goes on the MR. That is why I gave the example of the New York to Los Angeles sector, where I have had as much as a "flight time" up to 4 hours more than "air time" (time in service) because of summer time delays taxing at at Kennedy. For a scheduled blox time of a bit over 4 fours hours, I have (frequently) had a logged flight time of over 8 hours, 4+ hours taxi time, but "time in service" (air time) close to the flight plan sector time ---- once we got going. If you taxi out to the runup bay for 30 minutes of post maintenance engine runs, no time goes on the MR, no time comes off the time in service for the engine or aircraft, because you never got airborne, likewise a pilot can't log the time, because you were not taxing out for the purpose of flight. If you do taxi out for the purpose of flight, and find a problem doing the runup or similar, and taxi back, without ever getting in the air, you can log that as flight time. Best one I ever saw was a chap log almost 4 hours in one day, without ever getting in the air. Why and how --- that's for another time, and it was all legal --- in his case, flight time logged as pilot in command. Simple, really, like everything in "the rules" !! (Just so there is no constructive misinterpretation, that last bit is supposed to be very tongue-in-cheek) Regards,

Deadstick, Flight time : (what you put in your pilot log book) is defined in the Civil Aviation Act 1988, as amended up to Act. 8 of 2010; S.2 Interpretations. The definition is repeated in Civil Aviation Regulation (CAR) 2. Time in Service: is the time for maintenance recording (I have referred to "air time",shorthand for "time in service") and is defined in CAR 2. Wheels up to wheels down, or what FAA call "time off" to "time on". When I refer to a "certified aircraft", as in my previous post, I am referring to an aircraft with an ICAO Annex 8 C.of A, one issued per. CASR 21, or an Australian validation of a C.of A issued by the original country of certification, assuming the country is a signatory to the Chicago Convention 1944. Further, by certified aircraft I mean a fixed wing aircraft that is certified to CASR 23 or 25, or has a validation of an original country of origin C.of A the equivalent of the above. For "certified engine", I am referring to an engine certified under CASR 32 or 33. The Australian CASR 32 allows aircraft engines certified to JAR 22, Subpart H the status of a certified engine. Plus the equivalent provisos for a certified aircraft. No Experimental, Primary, Intermediate, Restricted or Limited Category aircraft per. CASR Part 21, RAOz registered aircraft or LSA fits the above. This includes some small aircraft, previously registered VH-, formerly with a standard C.of A, now registered with the RAOz. This should not be confused with certain provisions available to the RAOz to allow certain airframe/engine combinations to fly over a populace area (whatever populace area is -see previous post) or conduct certain defined operations with 24- or other RAOz registered aircraft. The RAOz Operations Manual defines the requirements. There are similar provisions for all un-certified aircraft in AU. If Jabiru have a Manufacture's Maintenance Schedule that requires airframe and/or engine maintenance based on "engine on to engine off" time by an oil switch activated Hobbs or similar, and you elect to maintain the aircraft to the Manufacturer's Schedule (probably a requirement to not void any warranty) that's a valid election. It doesn't change the definition of "flight time" or "time in service", unless Jabiru has a Legislative Instrument that says something like: "For the purposes of recording --- time in service ---- time in service shall be defined as ----- Hobbs meter etc." I very much doubt if Rod would bother to go to that trouble, when there is no need. If I had such an aircraft, at least for the airframe I would be establishing a conventional time recording for maintenance purposes. I don't really want to get into the fine print of whatever other options you might have, but there are a number of alternatives. Folks, As to the "opinions" of various posters on this thread about the situation that started the thread, tread carefully, some of the posts are defamatory. That the seller hasn't been named does not matter, if the seller can be identified. That you are using screen names, avatars or whatever makes no difference to the defamation. I have already tried to explain why the engine involved could legitimately be described as "overhauled", and hours were quoted from last overhaul. Some of you might have your own opinions,that is all they are, your opinions. Opinions that do not accord with legislation and industry standard practice. Those kind of opinions are not what a court will look at, as a defense, in deciding if defamation has taken place. Under the circumstances originally described, to publicly impute improper and dishonest behavior to the seller is putting you on very dangerous ground. Regards, PS: Why "60 kt" --- because a very cheap and reliable non-adjustable pressure switch to plumb in to the pitot is available --- set at the equivalent of ISA (Standard Atmosphere) sea level +/-0 for 60 kt. On most (every one I have come across) larger aircraft with an "approve automatic time recording system", the parking brake lever actuates the "off blox" and "on blox" recording, the main gear squat switches actuate the "time off" and "time on" recording. Thus, in a B747-400 at gross weight, the air time of will start recording at about 180 kt, and finish at touchdown. On a typical KJFK to KLAX leg, the air time and the blox time will differ by hours, depending on the congestion at Kennedy.

Re. Clecos, They are not expensive in lots of 100 from Aircraft Spruce by mail order. Regards,

Ianboag, Izzatso!! I suggest you actually read CAR 233, to see what it really says. Regards, PS: What goes into TSO GPS/FMCS databases is tightly regulated and all distributors are tightly licensed.

Folks, Firstly, a bulk strip of an engine, and finding all components within service limits (which is not the same as "new") inspecting as per manufacturers instructions and bulletins, then reassembly and test run is a legitimate overhaul, even though it is not to "new" tolerances. A log book for a certified engine should reflect both time since new and time since overhaul, but the time since new or total time in service does not necessarily have to be recorded, unless a manufacturer dictates otherwise. For props in certified aircraft, unless the manufacturer puts an hours or cycles limit on the prop, only time since overhaul is generally recorded. Secondly, for airframe, engine and prop. maintenance, air time is what is recorded. Wheels off to wheels on --- that's air time. Thirdly, brakes off for the start of taxi out to brakes on for shutdown is the time to log for a pilots log book. Depending on the taxi time, your pilot log book and the aeroplane log book can be very different for the same sortie, and still quite legal. Them's the (CASA and the rest of the world) rules for certified aircraft, and there is no reason to apply more restrictive (with the increased costs) rules to un-certified aircraft. All the variations of "tacho hours", oil switch Hobbs meters etc. are not relevant to the above. If tacho/oil switch hours are used by a club or whoever for charging for aircraft use, that is their business, nobody is forcing you to hire an aeroplane. Regards,

Jaykay and Davidh10, Jaykay, Please try and understand what I have written, nobody has suggested Rafferty's rules. Indeed, there has been only a marginal change in "the rule" in the CARs 166. The cultural shift you have to make is in understanding that the old Australian tradition of laying down blanket "rules" usually written in the negative, then followed by a long list of where "the rule" doesn't apply, is changing. Many of the "circuit rules" never were rules, (example: circuit heights) but the Australian mindset seems to want to stick with the "pingya" protocol ----- if you do (quote a long list of rules, shibboleths, and "The CFI said") so and so, "they" (whoever they is) can't pingya. Far too much of Australian aviation is about "compliance", even when there is nothing to comply with, and certainly, all to often, imagined or otherwise "compliance" is at the expense of air safety. If you are flying in the UK, up to PPL level, you will probably never have heard of, let alone seen the "UK AIR Pilot" or the Air Navigation Order ---- the rules --- but leaned what to do from some excellent CAPs, our equivalent of CAAPs and ACs. In the US, almost as true, holders of a Sports Pilot, RPL or PPL will not be obsessing about Acts, Regulations and Orders. And guess what, the GA accident rate in the US is about half Australia ---- so education and using your educated brain produces far better air safety outcomes than "blind compliance:, which has been the Australian way (and almost unique in aviation significant countries) for far too long. One well known commentator say it is because we are descendants of convicts, we only know how to obey the orders of the guards and the trusties --- I hope he is wrong, but I think there is a measure of truth. In summary, go read S.20A(1) & (2) of the Act, to learn what you have to comply with, that's your answer ---- read in conjunction with the regulations and recommendations for operations at airfields in Class G.. David, You are headed in the right directions. It's all called "outcome" or "performance" based rules for a best outcome ----- not complex, convoluted and contradictory prescriptive rules where, hopefully, "compliance" will cause "air safety" to eventuate, but all to often doesn't Regards,

Folks, Re. this thread as a whole, there is a CULTURAL SHIFT everybody has to make. Some of you, with all due respect, haven't yet made that shift --- and it will take time. The basic regulation that applies (suitably paraphrased from the Act) is: Thou shalt fly safely otherwise known as S.20A(1)&(2) of the Civil Aviation Act 1988. Then there is CAR 166 complete. And a few others, minimum heights for cruise, not forgetting the requirements that when it is 500', there is how AGL is measured, it is not just directly under the aeroplane. 1000' ( but look at the whole rule, gliding distance etc ---) over a built up area (if you can figure out what that is ---there are three definitions in various regulations) ---- but only if you are flying an aeroplane that can fly over a built up area. The CAAP is an "acceptable means of compliance", generally "good gen", but with all due respect, too many of you are looking for prescriptive rules, that you have been used to, even thought the "rule" might never have existed existed --- ie; fly circuits at 1000'. In fact, there have always been a variety of circuit heights, from 500' up --- to suit the occasion. You are now expected to use your noggin, and vary your operation to suit your aircraft, the time and place, other traffic, not causing a noise nuisance etc. For our purposes here, rote compliance is OUT, using your brains is the name of the game. There is no "one size fits all". It is great pity that the CASR 91, General Operating and Flight Rules, never went into place, it was a very simple document, hardly needed an AC ( Advisory Circular, legally the same as a CAAP) to understand it. Regards,

Crezzi, Absolutely nothing to do with the thread, but an Argosy is the only Aircraft I have heard of to crash backward, and the crew survived. It was a British European Airways aircraft, in a holding pattern outside Milan. The prevailing winds were so strong, plus turbulence, that it has "negative groundspeed", it went into a forest, more or less attitude and wings level, tail first. Early 1960's, from memory. Regards,

mudjeep, Sorry my memory is a bit hazy on this one, but it is probably somewhere in the mass of "rules" governing local government planning and consent --- just a guess, but a place to start. Regards,

crezzi, Re. 500' "Recommended", it wasn't, that was the minimum height --- the height in the circuit was not regulated. I regularly flew circuits in a B767 at 800"agl, although 1500' was the company standard ---- but we also had a "standard" low level circuit, thus 800'. I saw at least one reference to "Boeing circuits", believe me our standard circuit was a lot tighter than many circuits I see at GA airfields. There is one chap (who shall remain nameless --- but you know who you are) whose students only manage 4 circuits an hour??? In C-152 ---- That's not a circuit, that's a x-country. Please don't be unkind to the Twin-Pin, they can achieve 65kt in the circuit, they will wind up to almost 90kt in cruise, if you give them time --- and we have just one still flying regularly in AU, in very careful private hands. Regards, PS: I'm with you on overflying for a good look around and letting down to circuit height on the "dead side". We now have lots of flexibility, but that is still my preferred, with a straight in as second choice. And the latter only if I am thoroughly familiar with the aerodrome, and I have a Unicom or similar to tell me what wind is, and what is going on in the immediate area.

cficare, That Lockwood looks the same as one we had flying in Australia a while back, "finally" on an Experimental Test and Development Certificate. It was "testing" a camera mount, and the "test results" were a spectacular I-MAX film of Australia. It must have been one of the longest test schedule ever, with a rather wide test area. Nothing like a bit of lateral thinking after CASA said No! Regards,

David, You are on the right track, and if you are in NSW, it is worthwhile doing a bit of homework. As I recall, within the last 10 or so years, state law clarified the right of an owner or occupier to use his/her land in a reasonable manner. The legislation made it clear that you could use a paddock for a fixed wing or helo, provided it was for you private enjoyment ---- and put down on paper a maximum number of movements, beyond which council approval would be needed. Strange as it may seem, and rare as it is, the intent of the change was to prevent local councils taking an unreasonable set against anything aviation. Again, from memory, the movement rates limits for "private enjoyment" were not going to be a problem, except if you want to run a flying school in said back paddock. Don't go anywhere near the local council and mention aeroplane, if you can possibly avoid it, as one poster has found out. Just have nice long thin paddocks and nice big machinery sheds. Regards,

Dunlopdangler, Both the "non-standard colour perception" (rather than colour blind) and diabetic issues are studies in themselves, and the former is a running sore. Both in US and Australia, the tale of an insulin dependent diabetic who wants to be a pilot or air traffic controller is an interesting tale of knee-jerk No! from almost always change averse bureaucrats. It is a fact of life for a bureaucrat that, if he or she says Yes!, makes a decision for change, they have made that dreaded thing, "a decision". Whereas, if they just say no, that is not a decision with anything like the same consequences, hence the well developed propensity to "just say no". Sad, but true. The $$$$ involved, mostly from individual's pockets, even though many have benefited, in both the diabetic and non-standard colour perception cases, is a huge personal (even if taken voluntary) impost ----- even if the Government funded the colour vision AAT case. Indeed, this is where Governments should ( but seldom do) put funding, cases that are going to help many, but are all too often beyond the individual, so such cases all too often never see the light of day. Regards,

Folks, The standing joke about the pilot who had just passed his medical, and dropped dead when he got the Doctor's bill, is in reality not far from the truth. The whole history of "aviation medical standards" is thoroughly mid-understood and what they are NOT --- is the end result of a thorough risk assessment process and analysis to determine what is a suitable standard of medical condition/fitness to fly. What they were, originally, was a set of military medical screening standards designed to exclude all but the top 5% or so candidates for military flying training. Even in the military, it was not a matter of the minimum standard to fly. As the starting point for the regulation of civil aviation, in most counties including AU (but excluding US) was a quasi military organization, staffed by ex-military types. Nobody gave a moments thought as to whether military screening standards were suitable medical standards for civil aviation pilots, the same standards were just imposed. For example, when I first started, for CPL and up, you had to meet the eyesight standard without correction, even though you could later wear glasses, or more recently, contact lenses, as age caught up. Clearly, wearing glasses had nothing to do with flying safely!! When I got my first permanent flying job, the retiring age had just been increased from 45 to 50 ---- despite all the forecasts of death and destruction as crews collapsed in the air from "old age", it never happened. It is close to the truth to say that, in Australia, "medical standards" that were set by RFC in WW 1, only started to be "relaxed" in Australia in the early 1960s. And how did some people whinge about "reduced standards would hit safety". Strangely enough, the loudest whingers changed their tune as the normal effects of age started to catch up with them --- and all of a sudden they reckoned they could still fly safely --- which was, of course, true. I have written on this subject quite extensively, my starting point is the huge FAA database, but to distill it all down: There is no demonstrated connection between medical standards for pilots, as required by regulation, and any subsequent incident or accident caused by a medical event. For the original FAA RPL, FAA conducted a huge study, and came to the above conclusion, and thus proposed the National Drivers License Standard (which is a standard, you may need a formal medical --- see the rules in every Australian State and Territory) as the medical standard for the FAA RPL. There was a very unedifying eruption from the Association representing the FAA equivalent of a DAME (big $$$$ losses loomed) to the US DoT, and the medicos won, the FAA lost, and the take-up of the RPL was minimal In many ways, this is the only reason for the FAA SPL, go just a tich down market, give it another name, SPL instead of RPL ---- and ---- when the usual moans about "dangerous pilots flying without some magic bullet called a medical" ---- have FAA/AOPA-US/EAA submit the Australia experience of more than 20 years of thousands of pilots flying on a "National Drivers License" medical standard ----- without one single demonstrable case of an accident due to medical causes. Of course, in 1996, the then Australian Government adopted a new risk standard for assessing some aviation operations ---- where all involved affirmed they voluntarily accepted certain risks --- and that the CASA responsibility was to protect: "Other airspace users and those under the flight path of the aircraft". It was this point in Government policy shift ( which didn't "fall from the sky" --- it took a bloody lot of effort by a handful of people -- not including the then SAAA and AOPA) that underpinned that the Australian RPL having the same medical standard as the (then) AUF Pilot Certificate. In this day and age, all national aviation authorities give at least lip service to "risk management", but little really changes. In the CASA case, there is a very serious question about how the probability of a medical event will impact on "safety". IN reality, what is the "hazard, mitigation, residual risk and consequences". For assessment of the risk, on an annual basis, it seems to be assumed that the pilot will fly 24 hours a day, 365 days a year to assess the exposure. In fact it should probably be X:8760 of the annual risk, X being the number of hours flown a year, 8760 being the hours in a year. Even AU airline pilots fly a maximum of 900 hours a year, so even their exposure to being in the air, when they have a medical problem, is only about 10% of the assumed annual risk --- and that is generally a 2% PA probability, if my memory serves me correctly. So the "real" risk if a medical event having a safety consequence is, in somewhat over simplistic terms ( I am probably giving a real statistician the screamers) is "10% of 2%", which is a lousy way to put it, but you get the drift. In summary, a very good ( FAA) case can be made, and has been made, to show that: "There is no causal connection between the medical assessment standards for a pilot license of any class, and the hazard, residual risk and consequences of a pilot suffering a medical event in the air". Put slightly differently: "There is no relation between a pilot with a current medical of any class, and pilot morbidity airborne". For all you PPL and up CASA medical certificate holders, who are forever whinging about "flying without a medical', I hope that helps ease your fears. If you want to dispute what I have said, get onto the FAA web site and do your homework first --- the original RPL NPRM, the supporting material, and submission, and FAA disposition of input to the NPRM. As far as I am concerned, all the above stated as fact, is fact, not an opinion. Regards,

Folks, Personally, for most of my VFR flying, I prefer to use the 1:500,000 Tactical Pilotage Charts for up and down the east cost/eastern states, plus a suitable Airservices chart for the airspace boundaries and frequencies ---- despite the fact that I am usually moving fairly quickly, compared to most small aircraft. Re. the US Sectionals, one of the interesting "usage" problems is the standard tints to depict elevation --- given the amount of high ground, reading maps that are tan/dark tan in general color makes reading the details, printing etc., quite difficult in daylight, even harder for old eyes at night. Regards,

Folks, The best way to find out what CAO 95.10 says is to look it up on the CASA web site, which will take less than one minute, and then you will know what it actually says. http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/download/orders/cao95/9510.pdf Strangely, it means exactly what it say, no more, no less. CAO 95.10 is the ultimate (very light) true experimental category. Regards,