PDA

View Full Version : Consultation Draft Part 91.


Sunfish
26th Mar 2011, 21:55
CASA have released a consultation draft for part 91.

Download it here and have at it:

Civil Aviation Safety Authority - CASR Part 91 - General operating and flight rules (http://casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:PWA::pc=PARTS091)

D-J
26th Mar 2011, 23:13
is it just me.....? it seems casa thinks we're all criminals and that all breaches of the regs are deliberate & judging by the manner in which they've written the proposed part 91 they're out to get us....

example

91.145 Documents to be carried
(1) The pilot in command of an aircraft commits an offence if:
(a) he or she commences a flight...................

NZ regs written in a slightly less threatening manner

91.111 Documents to be carried
Except as provided in Parts 103, 104, and 106, a person must not operate an aircraft unless the following documents are carried in the aircraft:
(1)
except if rul.................................

Sunfish
26th Mar 2011, 23:24
First stumbling block - strict liability offence not to follow AFM. Presumably the Crew of the Qantas A380 that didn't follow the QRH are automatically guilty.

91.060:

(5) The pilot in command of an aircraft must discharge his or her
responsibilities under subregulations (2) and (3) in compliance
with the following:
(a) the aircraft flight manual instructions for the aircraft;



91.080 to 91.085 gives me the right as pilot to carry and discharge a loaded firearm from an aircraft?

91.095 Portable electronic devices - unless CASA issues a written dispensation in writing, presumably my hand held ICOM VHF may not be used in flight. Anything with a Bluetooth or WiFi conection is also out since these are transmitting devices.

91.145 says it is an offence not to carry your licence and medical, or reasonable copies thereof.


91.150 Says you have to carry the manual for your Dynon Skyview if fitted.

91.150 (4) says that screwing up your computer because you don't understand what you are doing is an offence.


91.210 says that failing to check that a fuel tank cap is fastened, and it falls of, then you are guilty of an offence. In other words any act of omission in checks is an offence.

However if you think it wasn't necessary and can convince a jury that belief was "reasonable" then that is a defence.

91.341 seaplane on water must comply with "International regulations for the prevention of collision at sea" not just "International regulations". Furthermore, they had better comply with the Harbour Masters regulations as well or there will be trouble.


91.510 means it is an offence to land with less than fixed reserves of fuel as far as I can tell. This reminds me of the storemans lament: "But if I give you the spare, then there won't be one in the store." There needs to be a defence for this charge.

91.567 - you are required to tell your passengers whether you are insured or not and if the aircraft is experimental.


91.775 says that if you have a red beacon then it will cost you 25 penalty units if you fail to turn it on after starting your engine. It's then 50 penalty units if you fail to turn your strobes on before moving.


91.920 Computerised navigation system databases

This appears to be a licence for Jeppesen to print money. The use of in car navigators, Iphones, Ipads or laptops with Ozi explorer is now verboten.

Sunfish
26th Mar 2011, 23:26
Basically, all Aviation is a criminal offence except under a very tight set of exemptions. What a system.

Ex FSO GRIFFO
27th Mar 2011, 00:01
Its OK Sunny -

Persuant to 91.095
(2)
(a)
(i) My hearing aid is ok to 'operate'......So, I'll be able to HEAR the Cabin brief....What??...
(ii) My pacemaker is ok to 'operate' ....(Is there an 'off' switch..??)

(v) My electronic watch is ok to 'operate'....phew - I'm glad of that. No 'off' switch on me watch either.....

So, at least, someone on board will be able to accurately note the time of my demise if/when the ole pacemaker decides to conform with the 'spirit of the law', and the last words I may hear could well be 'tea or coffee sir???'......

Its Time........for a change of gummint.....and a 'sensible' approach to ALL things 'aviation'.....IMHO...!!

Cheers:ok:

Bankstown Boy
27th Mar 2011, 00:05
It does appear though that we no longer get hypoxic at 10,001 feet but that we can survive up to 12,500 and even up to 14,000 for 30 minutes (warning - cursory glance only)

I too am bemused that most of it seems to imply a strict liability offense unless... I.e. You are guilty of crime unless you do, or prove, otherwise.

Another small point is that it is a strict offense to overfly a public gathering, with no altitude mentioned, should be interesting to watch the overflights of cities having to divert to avoid the overflight of the opening of an envelope /sarc off

sprocket check
27th Mar 2011, 07:19
We all need to make comments via official response. If we ignore it it'll happen to us.

Horatio Leafblower
27th Mar 2011, 12:40
Christ who writes this ****? :rolleyes:

Have they ever read legislation pertaining to ANY other human endeavour? :uhoh:

aroa
28th Mar 2011, 04:38
Exactly HL... who does.??

Anybody make any sense out of 91.220 (1) (a) and (b)

Is there a third way ?????

91.120 re flying over public gatherings ... oops, there goes the VP day poppy drops, and the kiddies lolly drops.

Frank Arouet
28th Mar 2011, 05:21
Christ who writes this ****?

Ask Creampuff.

Or if you want a more enlightened precis ask the resident Doctor of magical New Guinea spells, rattles, payback and tribal adornments at CASA Office of Legal Counsel.

Chimbu chuckles
28th Mar 2011, 08:36
Yup we're dealing with utter MORONS with no redeeming features whatsoever.

(2) The pilot in command of a multi-engined aircraft commits an offence if:

(a) during a flight of the aircraft, an engine fails or its rotation is stopped; and

(b) the pilot does not:

(i) fly the aircraft to the nearest aerodrome that is suitable for landing the aircraft; and

(ii) land the aircraft at the aerodrome. Penalty: 50 penalty units.

(3) It is a defence to a prosecution for an offence against subregulation (2) that:

(a) the pilot flew the aircraft to, and landed at, an aerodrome (the alternative aerodrome) that was not the nearest aerodrome suitable for landing the aircraft; and

(b) the pilot believed, having considered the matters mentioned in subregulation (4), that it was safe to fly the aircraft to, and land the aircraft at, the alternative aerodrome; and

(c) the belief was reasonable in the circumstances.

(4) For paragraph (3) (b), the matters are the following:

(a) the nature of the malfunction that caused the engine to fail, or caused its rotation to stop, and the possible mechanical difficulties that may occur if the flight continued beyond the nearest aerodrome suitable for landing the aircraft;

(b) the availability of the inoperative engine to be used;

(c) the altitude of the aircraft and whether it is able to maintain a safe altitude;

(d) the weight of the aircraft and the amount of usable fuel remaining;

MM07046A-110321A.doc, 22/03/2011, 3:59 PM Schedule 1 Amendments of Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998

(e) the additional distance to be flown to the alternative aerodrome, taking into account the aircraft’s performance availability should another engine fail;

(f) the relative characteristics of the nearest aerodrome and the alternative aerodrome;

(g) weather conditions on the route to the nearest aerodrome and the alternative aerodrome and at other possible landing places;

(h) air traffic congestion on the route to, and at, the nearest aerodrome and the alternative aerodrome;

(i) the pilot’s familiarity with the nearest aerodrome and the alternative aerodrome;

(j) the type of terrain to be flown over on the route to the nearest aerodrome and the alternative aerodrome;

(k) whether the flight to the nearest aerodrome or the alternative aerodrome will be over water;

(l) whether the flight to the nearest aerodrome or the alternative aerodrome will be over a populous area.

(5) An offence against subregulation (1) or (2) is an offence of strict liability.

Note For the defence of sudden or extraordinary emergency, see section 10.3 of the Criminal Code.

So the PIC of a 747 or A380 who carries out a precautionary shutdown of 1 of the 4 engines must divert and land at the nearest suitable aerodrome while the PIC of a 777 can fly over the most inhospitable and remote terrain on the planet on two engines?

You bozos better either rescind all ETOPS approvals or, better yet, stick to **** you understand. Its not immediately apparent what that might be - its certainly not flying aircraft.

notaplanegeek
28th Mar 2011, 10:14
I like this one the best; 91.185 Dropping objects from aircraft
The pilot in command of an aircraft commits an offence if:
(a) the pilot drops a thing, or permits a thing to be dropped, from the aircraft during a flight of the aircraft;

Thing... :p

cficare
28th Mar 2011, 10:53
everyone knows what 'thing' is...a detached human hand....

SgtBundy
28th Mar 2011, 11:50
Does "thing" include turbine discs, or is that not dropped when it is propelled out at mach 1+

:}

Ixixly
28th Mar 2011, 11:54
91.065 Directions and other actions by pilot in command

(1) The pilot in command of an aircraft for a flight may do 1 or more of the things mentioned in subregulation (2), if he or she believes it is necessary to do so for the safety of:
(a) the aircraft; or
(b) a person on board the aircraft; or
(c) a person or property on the ground or water.
(2) The things are the following:
(a) direct a person to do, or not to do, or stop doing, something, or to limit the doing of something, while the person is on board the aircraft;

The bolded line certainly made me giggle :D

Ex FSO GRIFFO
28th Mar 2011, 11:59
Dropping a 'thing'.....

I guessssss there goes the 'flour bag' bombing practice, and even the odd toilet roll for the 'streamer cutting' comp.

???

Sunfish
28th Mar 2011, 19:56
The fuel thing now means that at a ramp check CASA can inspect your remaining fuel and if you don't have enough for at least Thirty minutes they can prosecute.

Biggles_in_Oz
28th Mar 2011, 20:54
Farrrreeeakk.
You have to really read every word carefully.
I kept rereading 91.510 2(c) in disbelief until I finally noticed the keyword and in the preceeding 2(b).

Actually, that fuel-planning section raises an interesting issue if you're in the GAFA (no alternative aerodrome) and the headwinds are worst than planned-for hence you end-up arriving at your destination with less than the fixed-reserve.
As Sunfish said earlier, this section is too blunt an instrument.

Mainframe
28th Mar 2011, 21:50
Australian Pruners,

Fail to read and lodge comment on this draft proposal at your peril.

This is possibly one of the most aggressive and offensive draft rule proposals ever presented to Australian Aviation.

Almost every paragraph starts with "A Pilot Commits an Offence If" or "An Offence is committed".

There is no need for this style of attack on pilots and aviation.

One can easily assess the mind set of the authors, " We're out to get you !" no matter what.

Read the style of the proposed Part 91, then compare it with the style of the USA FARs, Part 91,
or read the NZ Part 91, Part 91 - General Operating and Flight Rules (http://www.caa.govt.nz/rules/Part_091_Brief.htm)

Those countries dont see the pilot community as criminals to be hunted down, same rules, different style, different assumptions.

There is no problem with the rules, but the aggressive stance and style of the proposed Australian Part 91 is beyond belief.

Write to the Part 91 website comment address, and ask that the style be changed.

Perhaps we should have rules for CASA officers in a similar vein?

"A CASA Officer Commits an Offence if" a deliberate falsehood is perpetrated.

"A CASA Officer Commits an Offence if" deliberate commercial harm is done to an organisation or pilot.

etc etc.

Make the unaccountable accountable, they have played their hand with Part 91, is this to be the style of the remaining parts?

SIUYA
28th Mar 2011, 22:08
Partly what CC said...

You bozos better ... stick to **** you understand. Its not immediately apparent what that might be - its certainly not flying aircraft.

Take a look at 91.455 for some more of the lunacy, in particular:

(2) A crew member of an aircraft commits an offence if:
(a) he or she provides an alcoholic beverage to a passenger on board the aircraft; and
(b) at the time of the provision, the passenger is affected by alcohol or another psychoactive substance to an extent that his or her behaviour presents a hazard to the aircraft or to a person on board the aircraft.

Some major problems here I think.

Firstly, a crew member...is this a cabin crew member, as per 91.455(1)(b), or any crew member? :confused:

Secondly, where is the objective criteria to define what behaviour presents such a hazard, what exactly is meant by by psychoactive substance, because those substances aren't defined in the proposed consultation draft (ie., illicit or non-illicit psychoactive substances)? :confused:

Now look at 91.460:

The operator, or a crew member, of an aircraft may prohibit a person from boarding the aircraft if there are reasonable grounds to believe that the person is affected by alcohol or a drug to an extent that may present a hazard to the aircraft or to a person on board the aircraft.

In this instance crew member seems to include flight and cabin crew...fair enough. But now CASA refers to a person affected by alcohol or a drug. So, what happened to psychoactive substances here at 91.460?? :confused:

For chrissakes CASA, after all this time you STILL managed to unnecessarily overcomplicate this CASR when it could simply have been a carbon copy of the NZ Part, and in the process made some monumental fcuk-ups in the process!

I'd suggest the Director CASA pulls his head out of his @rse, reads and understands the posts on this thread, then gets busy and organises a big arse-kicking party for the clowns who drafted this nonsense.

Idiocy like the CASR proposed should be a strict liability offence I reckon. :mad:

Ex FSO GRIFFO
29th Mar 2011, 02:05
Apart from the 'emotive' issues discussed here,

(I'd love to insert - " It is an offence for any CASA Officer to attempt to intimidate any crew member of an aircraft at any time" - Penalty - immediate dismissal as deemed not suitable for the job of promoting 'Openness' and 'Safety'. )

The real question:-
Is / are any of the Aviation organisations taking this up with the 'Legal fraternity' / Politicians, with a view to rescinding these draconian attempts at what amounts to shutting down the Aviation industry - by the so called 'Safety Regulator' - who is supposed to be the 'SAFETY AUTHORITY' - NOT a policeman lurking with book in hand at every opportunity!!

Ovah...

peuce
29th Mar 2011, 02:51
If you MUST land with your reserves intact .... it follows that they must NEVER be used.

What, then, are reserves for? :confused:

LeadSled
29th Mar 2011, 03:00
Folks,
CASR 91 ( and all other regulations being drafted) Drafting Style.

It should be noted that there are a number of acceptable legislative drafting styles available for Commonwealth legislation.

The highly prescriptive style represented in this CASR Part 91 draft is the style preferred by CASA, with the FAA or NZ style specifically rejected.
This was not always the case, and is not the industry preferred, but in recent years, industry input has been rejected on this issue.

Of much greater concern to me are the numbers of strict liability offenses where a measure of pilot or crew judgement is called for. In normal criminal law, in theory at least, criminal intent must be proved for a criminal conviction.

There is no need to prove intent in a strict liability offense, only the physical elements of the offense.

Any so called offense should never be strict liability, and in theory can never be a strict liability offense, where a judgement is called for on the part of the person accused of the offense.

Despite the horrible drafting style, there is actually some good stuff in this lot, including greater authority for the PIC.

Re. 30 minutes fixed final reserve, this is ICAO, and has been a feature of many airline fuel policies for many years ---- the change came about after a number of fuel exhaustion accidents with large aircraft.

I would suggest that our lamentable record of fuel exhaustion accidents in commercial GA would be addressed by this measure, it is already a feature of many more recent GA Ops. Manuals/FCOMs.

Those of you with a rudimentary understanding of "orders of accuracy" in anything to be measured will understand the reason for a Fixed Final Reserve --- the reserve that means there is a reasonable expectation that the engines will still be running when, on the day, all the +/- stack up against you ---- despite your calculation, howgoesit, gauges, flowmeters etc.--- all of which are subject to measurement error.

Tootle pip!

aroa
29th Mar 2011, 03:27
PART 91. OFFENCES ABLE TO BE COMMITTED BY PILOTS.

Note the NZ lot.. 157 pages. CASA 270

A win on bulk.!... but they cheated by chorusing the phrases about strict
liability and penalties throughout.

Its offensive in every way.

As for adopting the NZ Part, for Trans Tasman simplicity, that would be too quick, easy and save the taxpayer a bucketload... but no, got a shed full of wallies here, have to give them something to do.! Bugger the time and cost.

And in the uniquely Oz punative style.

As if there isnt enough of CASA reg-crap that needs rectification already.

Joker 10
29th Mar 2011, 05:13
What, then, are reserves for?

For that fateful day when the odds are agin you and the reserves save your a*se.

Pray you never have to use them.

notaplanegeek
29th Mar 2011, 07:27
Don't know why they list the penalty under each topic... why? so I can justify breaking it if its low enough?

Obviously you are in trouble if you get it wrong... how hard can it be?

somebody please, THINK OF THE TREES! :ugh:

peuce
29th Mar 2011, 10:08
What, then, are reserves for?

For that fateful day when the odds are agin you and the reserves save your a*se.

I don't know if my arse is worth saving if the next action due is to be dragged into court for using the reserves that are there to save my arse!

Yes, you can use the reserves to save your life ... but we'll make sure that the life you save turns into a misery !

There's something screwy about all this :*

Biggles_in_Oz
29th Mar 2011, 10:54
Yep Peuce, I totally agree.

Leadsled, whilst the intent of that 'arrive with fixed-reserve fuel' section is laudable, the wording of that section definitely is not, unfortunately it is the words that CASA and their legal team (on hourly rates) will convict us on if we arrive at our destination with less that the specified fixed reserves irrespective of the reason for the shortfall.

There are also discrepancies that I've found between what is stated in the explanatory appendix and what is actually stated in the proposed regulation(s).

This is legal language, where the actual words matter a heck of a lot.

LeadSled
29th Mar 2011, 13:42
---whilst the intent of that 'arrive with fixed-reserve fuel' section is laudableBiggles,
Let me make it a bit clearer ---- you should have 30 minutes fuel in the tanks at the end of the landing roll.

All other "reserves", weather, holding, ATC, approach allowance or however you calculate it is on top of the 30 minutes fixed final reserve. Normally the 30 minutes is calculated at the holding fuel flow for the landing weight.

Its all about making certain you have at least some fuel in the tanks at the end of the flight --- have a look at the ATSB/BASI records over the years. One would have thought "training and education" should be enough, but the record seems to indicate otherwise.

Lets be clear, it not laudable, its the law --- already, has been for years---- for most heavy aircraft, and will now apply to all operations --- better get used to the idea.

Tootle pip!!

Shagpile
30th Mar 2011, 06:15
I think the saddest part of these new rules is that now everybody is a criminal by default, we have lost all hope of having an open reporting culture where you can learn from peoples mistakes.

Will you honestly spill your guts about landing with less than reserves due to some unforseen factors?

Pity now that your friends and colleagues do not get to learn from your experience and mistakes as you have the 10 penalty units axe hanging over your head.

601
30th Mar 2011, 07:02
its the law --- already, has been for years

Not quite correct.

It use to be stated in the ANRs but that changed when CAR 234 was promulgated.

If an operator wants 10 minutes fixed reserve and has documented in their OM, there is nothing to stop them. CASA may not like it, but it is inline with 234(1) and (2). (CAR 234 "sufficient fuel")

CAAP 234-1 is only a guideline and is not the only method of complying with CAR 234.

By stating a number in Part 91, it makes it easier to ping you. All you can do is argue over on what the reserve is based on.

95.510(4)
(4) In this regulation:
fixed fuel reserve, for an aircraft, means the amount of fuel required to allow the aircraft to fly at normal cruising speed in International Standard Atmosphere conditions:
(a) for a rotorcraft — for at least 20 minutes; or
(b) for an aeroplane — for at least 30 minutes.

At what level? 1500 AGL, FL250?

Unhinged
30th Mar 2011, 07:32
its the law --- already, has been for years

No it isn't, and it hasn't been that way for years.

CAR 234 requires the pilot in command to take "reasonable steps to ensure
that the aircraft carries sufficient fuel and oil to enable the proposed flight to be undertaken in safety"

CAAP 234 describes itself as "a CASA preferred method for complying", but that "It is not the only method"

LeadSled
30th Mar 2011, 09:31
No it isn't, and it hasn't been that way for years.

Folks,
As I have already said, it been in many ops. manuals for years, that makes it enforceable, for those operators.

That there are still out of date/ non-ICAO regulation still around is hardly news, that there are many unamended ops manuals around says something about CASA audits, if the FOIs even understand the intent, which I am quite certain many don't.

What is wrong with the draft is "normal cruising speed", undefinable.

The common (ICAO) approach is 30 minutes at holding speed, which can be pinned down, and more to the point, for a large aircraft, would be a lot less fuel than something called normal cruise, but commonly about 3% of the total fuel load, which just happens to be of the right order to take care of the order of accuracy issues.

ICAOwise, it is all about, and only about taking care of measurement errors, and making certain there is some fuel in the tanks on landing.

For those of you who do not understand "order of accuracy", it would be a really good idea to look up the concept.

Tootle pip!!

Biggles_in_Oz
30th Mar 2011, 11:50
Leadsled, I understand your explanation, but the proposed regulation 91.510 does not say anything about 'order of accuracy'., it doesn't explain anything. (and interpreting the fuel gauges in a lot of GA aircraft would be more like 10% accuracy rather that your 3% in an RPT A/C)

91.510 bluntly states that you must have your (ill-defined) fixed-reserve intact when you land, otherwise you are guilty.

There is no provision for any defence.,
It doesn't care if the actual winds are worst than forecast.,
It doesn't care it you have a slow fuel-leak.,
It doesn't care if you get held by ATC because of problems due Wx or worst-than-usual congestion.
It doesn't care that you've had to do bigger diversions due to worst-than-forecast Wx or conditions.

Biggles_in_Oz
30th Mar 2011, 12:09
I don't understand 91.120
Wouldn't 1(b) (i) arriving at or departing from an aerodrome ...
and 1(b) (ii) passing from place to place in the ordinary course of navigation ...
cancel out the offense at 1 (a) ... flies the aircraft over a public gathering?

LeadSled
30th Mar 2011, 12:39
Biggles,
No, it doesn't say anything about order of accuracy in an operating rule, that's all buried away in certification rules.

There is no provision for any defense.,The defense is the defense available for any strict liability offense. See the Criminal Code.

Of course, something like this should never be a strict liability offense. It should be up to the prosecution to prove that there was intent to run below the fixed final reserve.

Say, planning totally inadequate operational reserves in the first place, or deliberately continuing when it should have been clear from the howgoesit that the fixed final reserve would be breached.

It doesn't care if the actual winds are worst than forecast.,

Quite correct, that's what variable reserves are for, and a howgoesit, and if you are going to run short, divert and get some more motion lotion.

It doesn't care it you have a slow fuel-leak.,

If you can prove that, it would be a defense.

It doesn't care if you get held by ATC because of problems due Wx or worst-than-usual congestion.

Correct again, that's what you carry ATC holding fuel for. If you get caught out by unexpected ATC delays, divert or declare an emergency.
Here is where the Yanks have a good way of handling the matter, declaring a fuel state ( don't remember the correct words, off hand) without having to declare a full-on Mayday.

It doesn't care that you've had to do bigger diversions due to worst-than-forecast Wx or conditions.

Spot on again, if your pre-flight planning and resultant fuel load proves to be not enough, as the weather and ATC diversions and delays develop, commonly one resulting in the other, same required solution.

Hardly even what you would call a command decision, really, just plain common sense, but in Australia we seem to need to regulate to require common sense.

The fixed final reserve, as a concept, is ezzzactly what it says it is.

Tootle pip!!

PS: One of the few ramp checks I have ever had, back in the days of "the good old DCA", involved checking my fuel remaining. It was a Cessna 205. I demanded that the only way to determine the fuel remaining, was to fill the tanks, at DCA expense, and see how much it took
The inspector took the bait, I was well inside the then 45m reserve, and was left with a free load of fuel for the final 90 minute leg of the trip. I haven't had too many wins like that one, over the years.

Kharon
4th Apr 2011, 04:25
Well, you got what you wished for – a new regulation.

There are 3 things about this proposed legislation which should have every operator in Australia up in arms.

There are 3 reasons why there is not a major outcry, can you guess what?.

This document shows that CASA do not want to effect rules which cannot be tinkered with by policy or manipulated to suit their 'interpretation', that much is clear.

These changes will become bogged down and the CASA can say "Well m'lud, we tried and they were rejected, now can you see why it has taken so long". "What can we do"?. or: The proposals are accepted and the cynical, mindless arrogant micro management apparent in the document continues, only now with real legal teeth.

There is no way we are ever going to get sensible outcome based regulation no matter how many other countries do it, manage to meet ICAO 'principals' and encourage an open reporting culture in an atmosphere where you not presumed guilty at every event.

The only error in their game plan is not to criminalize the "**** – Fart separator – Check", which, IMHO should be a jailable offence. You can tell they missed it, just read the proposed reg, the stench of systematic corruption is almost visable.

We are doomed boys, it's a one way street and there is no room at the trough for probity. :yuk:

Selah.

OZBUSDRIVER
4th Apr 2011, 10:53
And to think the Democrats were ready to propose to disallow the instrument in 2003 (http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-general-aviation-questions/98539-liability-remain-strict-under-civil-aviation-regulations.html).

Strict Liability:ugh::mad: should never have been allowed to be written into the regs. Not the brightest time at bat for those responsible for stopping the Dems from acting.

EDIT- sorry creamy...as a dumb truck driver, I always attempt to stay on the right side of the law.....not always safe but still on the right side of the law.

Sunfish
4th Apr 2011, 21:13
Leadsled, your defence of the fixed reserve fuel regulation fails under most circumstances because you would have to prove that the conduct, landing with less than Thirty minutes fuel was unavoidable.

In practice what that means is that you can no longer exercise any discretion - the Thirty minutes fuel has to be counted as "Dead fuel", to the point where, if I ever decide to continue with the acquisition of an aircraft, I'm going to have the gauges and dipstick recalibrated to leave Thirty minutes worth at empty.

Let me make myself clear. Under this regulation, the very minute you determine in flight that you are likely to chew into that Thirty minute reserve - which I will now call the legislative reserve, for whatever reason, wind, cloud, leaks, engine malfunction, you must take immediate avoiding action if such action is available to you.

If you fail to take immediate avoiding action once it became obvious that you would break the legislative reserve, and instead press on, you are guilty of the offence, unless you can prove that no other course of action was available to you.

That means divert to the nearest available airstrip or turn back.

The interesting legal argument in court will be whether an outback station strip qualifies as an available airport and exactly when the potential low fuel state event ought to have been discoverable by the pilot.

oh! and a P.S. Kharons comment is spot on - The presentation of the new part 91 to the industry in the existing oppressive regulatory language and format indicates that CASA has no interest whatsoever in regulatory reform.

The issue for new entrants to the GA industry now is whether they can live with this regime. It would appear that GA is dying fast, which is why it appears that CASA has now decided that recreational aviation is a potential new host for it to feed on.

LeadSled
5th Apr 2011, 05:51
In practice what that means is that you can no longer exercise any discretion - the Thirty minutes fuel has to be counted as "Dead fuel", to the point where, if I ever decide to continue with the acquisition of an aircraft, I'm going to have the gauges and dipstick recalibrated to leave Thirty minutes worth at empty.

Sunfish,
As a matter of interest, something along these lines is now included in the FAR 25 certification rules ---- a provision which requires the fuel gauge systems to be calibrated such that, below a specific amount, the contents remaining is the minimum remaining in the tanks, ie; no minus applicable to the plus/minus, meaning you have at least that amount of fuel remaining.

landing with less than Thirty minutes fuel was unavoidable.

Correct, and it should not be a strict liability offense, because a judgement is called for by the PIC.



What nobody seems to have bothered picking up on is the concept of "normal cruise" as an undefined fuel flow, on which to base the calculation of 30 minutes holding.

A more appropriate way, because the fuel flow rate can be pinned down (plus/minus for the order of accuracy) is the holding fuel flow rates, whci are largely dependent on only weight. ie; the thrust/horsepower is dependent on the drag at Vmin drag.

Tootle pip!!

Sunfish
5th Apr 2011, 06:22
Thank you for your comment Leadsled.

"Thirty Minutes cruise" fuel in what I may possibly acquire is about Nine litres. If I ever get down to the last Nine litres, then prosecution will be a blessing.

Ex FSO GRIFFO
7th Apr 2011, 05:54
"Indeed we are required by the Civil Aviation Act to conduct "full and effective consultation and communication with all interested parties on aviation safety issues".

From the Director of Aviation Safety
John McCormick

The CASA Briefing
Your monthly CASA update
March 2011

NOWHERE there do I read anything but the words 'safety issues'!!!

Now, just where do the 'commercial' issues that are being complained about
on these forums come from.

A professional (doctor, mechanic, photographer etc etc), private pilot, uses an aeroplane, registered in the private category, to carry himself and his required tools to go to a particular site / location / place, and do a particular job of his / her profession....

Many an 'outback' doctor, vet., (or a mechanic, or a whatever profession / skill) would fall into this category.

Are these 'issues' mentioned in the said 'Civil Aviation Act'..??

How specific is the Act? - 'Tis indeed a looong time since I even had a look at it.

Is that what I'm reading here..??

Cheers:ok::ok:

aroa
7th Apr 2011, 06:57
What you read about here is the tragic results of decades of neglect of the Aviation Industry by Governments, and the distinct lack of governance and common sensibility in CASA.

CASA is its own wild dog, barking mad at "safety" shadows.. and ignoring Government requirements, Ministerial directives, and Board policies with negilgent disregard and criminal disdain.

And totally ignoring the needs of the Industry in the process.

."To Hell with the Rules" of regulation, and the whys and wherefores of "safety outcome " based regs.

So, you, me, GA, pvt flying and the whole damn country are poorer for it.

Will it be ever thus? Going on the last 30 years, its not a good look.! :\

djpil
7th Apr 2011, 10:19
One of my favourite activities is taking a biplane up for some aerobatics near the end of the day on a beautiful Victorian Autumn day. Clear blue skies and totally calm. Stop the aeroplane and get out well before last light.

But just imagine what the CASA guy would say to me when I got down if these new rules go ahead.

There was no evidence that I assessed the weather, checked take-off and landing performance, checked weight and cg. I must admit that the rules don't require that any paperwork be retained as evidence - but the CASA guy didn't see me do it so I need to prove that I did.

I didn't perform the pre-flight inspection per the flight manual - did not look inside wheel fairings for mud.

Took off, birds in the way so turned a little early. Another 50 penalty points.

I did some aerobatics. Flew numerous tracks contrary to the specified cruising level for a VFR flight.

Stopped it on the taxi-way in front of the hangar then went inside to look for some-one to help me push it in.

That's when the CASA would collar me.

Well before last light but the sun had just gone down as I taxied in. Poor visibility he said and I needed cockpit lighting, navigation lights, anti-collision light, landing light and torch. Day VFR and the aeroplane doesn't have any lights at all - doesn't matter he said, you broke the rule, it was poor visibility (guess who decides what poor visibility is) for the last couple of minutes.

Been talking to him for a while now and it is quite dark outside. The aeroplane is now a danger to other aircraft on the taxi-way. Another 50 penalty points.

Let me see - that is a maximun fine of about $99,000 for one short flight.

Sunfish
7th Apr 2011, 19:12
Djpil perfectly encapsulates the issue.

What's worse is that these are criminal, not civil, offences.

The format, structure and language of the latest consultation draft indicates that CASA has no intention whatsoever of implementing any regulatory reform.


By the way, how do you define "Thirty minutes cruise fuel" for a self launched motor glider, possibly electrically powered?

aroa
8th Apr 2011, 01:50
91.2000X
(1) The pilot of a motor glider commits an offence if he or she, flies a motor glider, regardless of its source of motive force: reciprocating piston engine, turbine engine, or electric motor, if...
(a) at the termination of the flight the..
(i) fuel tank does not contain sufficient fuel remaining for 30 minutes of flight at normal cruise speed, or
(ii) the battery pack for the electric motor does not retain sufficient charge to operate that motor for 30 minutes at sustainable cruise speed.
(iii) lands the motor glider as a non-powered glider, having no motive means once on the ground.
(iv) Failure to comply with 91.2000X (1) (a) (i) or (ii) or(iii) is an offence under the Act

This offence is a criminal offence of strict liability, see Sec. 6.1 of the criminal code.
50 penalty points. (Or jail, preferably)

Note: It is proposed to make an NPRM to advise Australia that a safety regulations will be made regarding motor gliders that have a self-launching capability only, eg; as in a solid fuel, one shot rocket launch that gives the glider no further powered flight sustainability, thus avoiding the safety requirements of 30 mins fuel on landing and not landing "motor-less".

CASA is not sure that this does not constitute an extreme danger to the public on the ground. A Panel of Experts within the Authority will convene
to decide if this sort of activity should not be banned.
Until CASA is satisfied , (bet you've heard that before)that an aircraft landing without its own means of motive force is deemed to be safe, this sort of activity cannot proceed until a new regulation set is in place.
THe NPRM will be issued in 2013 and a final rule is expected to be made by 2019.
What happens after that wont matter because the asteroid heading our way in 2019 might NOT bypass Earth.!

Jeez, reg writing is fun, maybe Ive missed my calling.
Let me do some.. while CASA has got GA on its knees, I could cobble up some regs that would really kick it in the head while its down, and put GA out of our collective miseries.

Ooops .. too late!.. CASA are already in the process of doing that.

sprocket check
8th Apr 2011, 13:35
Another bizarre thing:

China announced in November the opening of airspace for GA. In the next 5 years the experts say the fleet will grow from 600 light aircraft to 10000.

So while China is pulling the wall down, CASA is doing it's best to discourage any form of aviation. Genius, just genius. Imagine how much export money is going down the drain here.

Sc

Sunfish
8th Apr 2011, 18:09
The Chinese bought Continental and Cirrus. Go figure.

Biggles_in_Oz
12th May 2011, 09:55
Even though http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-reporting-points/164130-regulatory-reform-program-will-drift-along-forever.html?highlight=casr+91
comments to CASA about their "Consultation Draft of CASR part 91" will close on Tues 31 May 11.

There are more than 300 pages of 'legalise' language and way too many of the sections contain 'the pilot commits an offense of strict liability', but still., it will affect us all, so let 'em know what you think.

Biggles_in_Oz
28th May 2011, 05:05
Gyroscopic instrument power
(2) For a flight of the aircraft under the IFR, the aircraft must have:
(a) an alternative power supply for the heading indicator (directional gyroscope), the turn and slip indicator, and each attitude indicator system; and
(b) a means of indicating whether power is available to powered instruments (including air-driven instruments).

I fine with (b), but does (a) imply electrical power, or does it mean that the PA28 Warrior i rent for IFR trips has to have two vacuum pumps to supply the air-driven insruments ?

T28D
28th May 2011, 09:30
Yes it does

VH-XXX
28th May 2011, 10:57
(a) an alternative power supply for the heading indicator (directional gyroscope), the turn and slip indicator, and each attitude indicator system; and

The easiest way to comply with A would be an electric AH with backup battery.

Short of a backup vacuum as you mentioned, there aren't many other options, other than a vacuum AH and an electric AH too.