Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

I do wonder that basic training on the regs for pilots ...

 

the requirements that the aircraft be a single to two place aircraft has nothing to do with the iOS manual or tech manual but is the core of the CAO beer which raaus get coverage.  
 

23 reg falls under 95.55 and all aircraft under this CAO may have only 1 or 2 seats.   No question of passengers it comes down to single or two seat.  If you put three people in it’s no longer a two seat aircraft.  Simples. 
 

now the fun begins.  Assuming there were three people in the aircraft it by definitions ceased being a two seat aircraft.  Ceased being eligible for 95.55.  Ceased being able to be registered by raaus.  Pilot ceased being an raaus pilot certificate holder operating an raaus aircraft.  Ceased being subject to raaus control or censure.  Ceased being under raaus discipline or anything.  

This means the ONLY censure and penalty is CASA if there was a third person in that aircraft.  
 

and it’s on the news so they are probably going to have to do something.  

Edited by kasper
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 144
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Whether it's allowable or not, surely the purpose of recreational aviation is to get AWAY from the kids???

I always believed that a baby could be carried as a 3rd person as long as it was on the lap and does not interfere with controls. If I also believed that I can certainly understand the pilot having th

Well I guess he could say the child is a newborn and his wife went in to expedited labour when the engine failed, was born on descent to the forced landing cleaned up and dressed before touchdown.

Posted Images

There were 3 people in an Ra-Aus registered aircraft which has 2 seats and the allowable number of persons on board is 2. No ifs or buts here. He will likely have his pilot certificate suspended at the very minimum. It is far too public to sweep this under the carpet. I'm sure this has happened plenty of times before with no-one any the wiser but his luck ran out when the engine stopped even though he got it down without injury or damage to the aircraft and the public and press were everywhere.

 

What caused the engine failure will be established in due course. As far as I know there has never been any engine made in the history of aviation that has not failed because it is man made and nothing man made is perfect.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Maybe he can say the bub was just Mums luggage? After all, the littley would only be about 10kgs. I've seen woman with handbags that weigh more than that!

 

 

Edited by onetrack
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

What I would like to see come out of this incident is a decent follow up report as to what actually happened with the power plant and related systems. The video shows the prop turning so not a busted engine. I have talked to the tech manager as to why there is almost never any follow up and he said they cannot compel people to give that information. The RAAus accident and incident system is a wast of space if we cannot learn anything from it.

  • Like 2
  • Agree 4
  • Winner 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Note that Rotax 91series motors don't windmill when they run out of fuel in flight.

(Don't ask me how I know)

  • Like 2
  • Informative 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Thruster88 said:

What I would like to see come out of this incident is a decent follow up report as to what actually happened with the power plant and related systems. The video shows the prop turning so not a busted engine. I have talked to the tech manager as to why there is almost never any follow up and he said they cannot compel people to give that information. The RAAus accident and incident system is a wast of space if we cannot learn anything from it.

No injuries, no fatalities, successful forced landing, so it doesn't go down the Coroners path. Might feature in the RAA Magazine as a short report, but there are dozens of forced landings for thousands of reasons.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I always believed that a baby could be carried as a 3rd person as long as it was on the lap and does not interfere with controls. If I also believed that I can certainly understand the pilot having the same belief and most probable thousands of other pilots.

 

Now, for tongue in cheek, the courts recognise a life (or a recognised person) as being a 22 week fetus so does that mean that a pregnant woman of greater than 22 weeks also can not be a pax?

 

I think a bit of common sense and understanding should go out to the pilot especially when you consider what he has gone through and the fear he must have felt to have both his wife and especially his 1 year old child with him.

 

Well done to the pilot!

  • Like 4
  • Agree 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, kasper said:

I do wonder that basic training on the regs for pilots ...

 

the requirements that the aircraft be a single to two place aircraft has nothing to do with the iOS manual or tech manual but is the core of the CAO beer which raaus get coverage.  
 

23 reg falls under 95.55 and all aircraft under this CAO may have only 1 or 2 seats.   No question of passengers it comes down to single or two seat.  If you put three people in it’s no longer a two seat aircraft.  Simples. 
 

now the fun begins.  Assuming there were three people in the aircraft it by definitions ceased being a two seat aircraft.  Ceased being eligible for 95.55.  Ceased being able to be registered by raaus.  Pilot ceased being an raaus pilot certificate holder operating an raaus aircraft.  Ceased being subject to raaus control or censure.  Ceased being under raaus discipline or anything.  

This means the ONLY censure and penalty is CASA if there was a third person in that aircraft.  
 

and it’s on the news so they are probably going to have to do something.  

As we know, when we buy a new computer (bare) we can’t make spreadsheets or upmarket documents until we install software. I’ve mentioned many times that RAA missing the Compliance and Enforcement Rule Modules that other Associations have. RAA as a Self Administering Organisation is missing the key tool of self administration. With that in place the chain of escape you described can be handled, the Association can investigate incidents like this and penalties, usually suspensions can be applied. Hand in hand with that goes an appeals process to ensure natural justice.

  • Winner 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, planedriver said:

So what's the story if a pilot also takes his pet dog along for the ride?

There used to be a regulation requiring him to carry a firearm. 
MTOW and interference with controls are the two critical elements.

  • Informative 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, planedriver said:

So what's the story if a pilot also takes his pet dog along for the ride?

There are plenty of pilots who do and more than one sometimes with pilot and passenger also. I would be very concerned with the noise level for a baby though.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

pets have to be in cages/compartments .... so that animal waste products cant cause corrosion....  cant go on seat with a leash ! maybe blind pilots are exempt.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Back in the day I used to take my dog flying but in the back seat. He was happy looking out the window when taxiing but got bored flying as there was nothing to look at & just slept because he couldn't hang his head out the window.

 

From the video (which I have only just seen) the pilot did a good job of landing on soft sand with the prop still turning so it was obviously power loss not complete engine failure.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 It's always better if you are say low on fuel to land while you still have the option of USING the engine to make adjustments. NOTE Not suggesting this is the case here. but  the 912 does not usually continue to turn the prop if the engine is not making some power.  Nev

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

There used to be a regulation requiring him to carry a firearm.

Turbo, surely you jest? Discharging a firearm inside a cramped cockpit would produce enough concussive forces and fumes, to just about disable a pilot - let alone the potential damage to aircraft control systems with a random bullet!

I would expect anyone who wanted to take a pet with them in a light aircraft, would have enough brains to have the pet tethered in a harness, exactly the same as is required in many jurisdictions, for road vehicles.

 

An interesting point about this forced landing, is that commercial airlines do not require a separate seat or restraint for any child under 24 mths of age.

CASA and other Govt authorities are obviously most concerned about child protection in the event of an aircraft crash, as the primary safety angle.

 

The ATSB got a grant to carry out research into child restraint (where the child does not have its own seat), because young children in aircraft crashes, without proper restraints, have suffered from an excessive death rate, as compared to adult pax.

 

https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/32773/crs_final.pdf

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Turbo, surely you jest?  No, it was in the Air Legislation module in the days when you could buy a hand gun, take your hunting rifle and stick it up in the luggage racks..........and shoot a lot more things than you can now. I never gave the explosive factor any thought, but that would probably be better than a rottweiler chewing your ear off in a 172.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, onetrack said:

Turbo, surely you jest? Discharging a firearm inside a cramped cockpit would produce enough concussive forces and fumes, to just about disable a pilot - let alone the potential damage to aircraft control systems with a random bullet!

I would expect anyone who wanted to take a pet with them in a light aircraft, would have enough brains to have the pet tethered in a harness, exactly the same as is required in many jurisdictions, for road vehicles.

 

An interesting point about this forced landing, is that commercial airlines do not require a separate seat or restraint for any child under 24 mths of age.

CASA and other Govt authorities are obviously most concerned about child protection in the event of an aircraft crash, as the primary safety angle.

 

The ATSB got a grant to carry out research into child restraint (where the child does not have its own seat), because young children in aircraft crashes, without proper restraints, have suffered from an excessive death rate, as compared to adult pax.

 

https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/32773/crs_final.pdf

 

The airlines must be ahead of the regs then.  We flew to Europe when our youngest was under 2, she was given a supplementary belt that hooked on to a parents belt.

  • Informative 1
Link to post
Share on other sites


https://vfrg.casa.gov.au/general/pilot-responsibilities/carriage-of-animals/

 

Carriage of animals CAR 256A

The operator of an aircraft may not permit a live animal to be in the aircraft unless:

  • the animal is in a container and is carried in accordance with this regulation or
  • the animal is carried with the written permission of CASA and in accordance with any conditions specified in the permission.

The above does not apply to a dog accompanying a visually impaired or hearing impaired person as a guide or an assistant if the dog is:

  • carried in the passenger cabin of the aircraft
  • placed on a moisture-absorbent mat as near to the person as practicable
  • restrained in a way that will prevent the dog from moving from the mat.

More than one animal must not be kept in the same container if doing so would be likely to adversely affect the safety of the aircraft.

A container must be so constructed that:

  • an animal kept in the container cannot escape from the container
  • any water or excreta in the container are not likely to escape from the container in normal flying conditions
  • the container will withstand being damaged in a way that may allow an animal, or water or excreta, in the container to escape.

A container in which an animal is kept must not be in the passenger cabin of an aircraft.

An animal must be restrained in a container that is strong enough to withstand damage that may allow the animal to escape. The animal must also be restrained in a way that prevents an adverse effect on the load distribution of the aircraft.

An animal must not be carried on an aircraft if carrying the animal would be likely to adversly affect the safety of the aircraft.

In this regulation, animal means any member of the animal kingdom other than man.

 

 

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Marty_d said:

The airlines must be ahead of the regs then.  We flew to Europe when our youngest was under 2, she was given a supplementary belt that hooked on to a parents belt.

Same, when we flew with small humans we were given a supplementary belt, that was 25+ years ago.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, onetrack said:

 

An interesting point about this forced landing, is that commercial airlines do not require a separate seat or restraint for any child under 24 mths of age.

CASA and other Govt authorities are obviously most concerned about child protection in the event of an aircraft crash, as the primary safety angle.

 

 

1 hour ago, onetrack said:

 

there is a huge difference between a commercial aircraft and an LSA aircraft. Most LSA aircraft barely clear your stomach/chest when the stick is pulled back all the way. If the child was in fact sitting on someone's lap then it is illegal. If the child was in the back of the aircraft it is again illegal. You are not allowed to carry a child in ANY RA-Aus aircraft as third person.  I am flabbergasted as to why you would think that comparing information for commercial airlines in any way closely aligns with RA-Aus aircraft.

This pilot has broken the rules, there is no excuse because everybody knows that an RA-Aus aircraft is limited to 2 seats, one seat for the pilot and the other seat for the passenger unless it is a Jabiru and then you call the passenger a victim. >> Ha Ha.  <<

 

let's move on, the pilot should and will face reprimand. Probably from CASA because all that the RA-Aus can do is suspend or terminate his flying privileges. Was something this public, I would say he deserves everything he gets.

  • Informative 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

About 40 years ago when I first asked whether I could take my dog away on holiday with us in the club 172 there did not appear to be any specific rules. Farmers used to fill the back with 6 or 7 dogs & fly them out to muster. I never heard of any problems. All I was told was just to tie the leash to the seatbelt point & put a cover on the seat so it didn't get dirty. My dog could go from one side to the other to look out the window & in flight just lay down & went to sleep. You used to be able to buy Mutt Muffs to keep the noise level down for the dog. I borrowed a pair once but my dog hated them & ripped them straight off.

  • Informative 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, onetrack said:

Turbo, surely you jest? Discharging a firearm inside a cramped cockpit would produce enough concussive forces and fumes, to just about disable a pilot - let alone the potential damage to aircraft control systems with a random bullet!...

 

I knew a bloke who told of shooting wolves from a cub. Only issue was when he shot a hole in a strut.

  • Informative 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...