Revenue or (Black letter) Reverence.

[Kharon]

Sunny - Heard about a person yesterday who was ramped at YSWH or YMIA by CASA recently. All was well except. Got fined last week – strict liability – dog off lead, endit: but I was offered the option to fight or pay; fair dooze et al. Even a parking ticket seductively offers a chance for redemption (fat chance – dream on). But the option is there.

Yes, in all probability the guy should have had his 'spare pair' with him, figure it the way the Council (near you) work it out and your solution is near at hand.

The 'dog' (btw) weighs in at 6 kg (in running boots) – and; the guy could probably see (near enough). Neither the Council or the authority cares; "you're nicked me ol' darling – pay here". Revenue - you betcha. Shame really - the once admired, respected 'authority' reduced to the same caste as Council Rangers.

Makes you wonder - just a bit.


.

[Frank Arouet]

If one is required to have a spare pair of visual adjustment devices to fly an aeroplane, why does he need a spare pair of "readers". I have a spare set of both, to be sure to be sure, as the Irish say about the double condom theory, in the form of bifocals. Or perhaps I need a spare pair of bifocals?

Do binoculars suffice if they have focus adjustment.

Just asking as I am guilty of not understanding plain English as she is writ by CAA.

[Checkboard]

If you have a spare pair of glasses, and you lose one pair - are you now no longer legal?

i.e. You cannot use your spare pair to replace the lost pair - as you no longer have a spare pair. :hmm:

If CASA ramp you, and find you with one pair of glasses, and you explain that you only just lost your normal pair, and the pair on your nose ARE your spare pair - do you have a defence?

[Kharon]

Checkboard bad boy – again;– using logic, reasoned argument and common (or garden) sense play no part in this robust, critical to Safety discussion. :D

We shall, in due course have authoritative, quasi legal comment fetched to us (like it nor not) explaining why we are a bunch of no hope, criminally irresponsible hooligans and that the wearing of the 'spare' pair is quite rightly policed to the $2500 black letter of the law. Bit like the RTA doing you for using the spare tyre (same sort of thing really).

Who would have thought that the spare pair were not for 'uses operational', when the none spare pair had gone tech. (Nav bag full of busted glasses).

Sunny - He needs reading glasses according to his medical. He was fined $2500 for not being able to produce his spare pair.

[Checkboard]

So - because the law says you must have two pairs at all times - you must buy THREE pairs to remain legal? :rolleyes:

Keep one on your face, and two in the Nav Bag?

[Mach E Avelli]

Easy solution. One proper pair on your nose and two 10 dollar readers from the local K Mart. The ramp guy can only ask to sight them, not take them away for testing.

[Arnold E]

Does the spare pair have to be serviceable, that is, not broken, or do they simply have to be available??

[Frank Arouet]

The bloke that was allegedly fined couldn't produce his spare pair of readers, not his looking normal glasses. Thus if this be true, you need 4 pair. Readers plus a spare, and lookers plus a spare.

K Mart looks good. One should buy 10 pair to be sure to be sure.

[Ixixly]

Could one get away with buying a 10 dollar pair, breaking it in half and having 2 spare Monocals? I'm not a glasses wearing person myself so I haven't read the laws, but does it specifically state it needs to Bifocals and not Monocals???

[Wally Mk2]

I was ramped by a CASA guy one day whilst he was doing other duties at the drome.
Apart from the usual check of paperwork which equaled the weight of the plane (so good to go there) I got asked about my restriction on my license (glasses) & apart from the pair i was using at the time I showed him 2 other pairs, one an older prescription set that was still serviceable but had seen better days as well as a pair of basic magnification glasses from a chemist shop, 3 sets in all & he was happy. I wouldn't go flying without 3 sets from the onset of any flight anyway.Remember it's not about making sure you don't get fined or being legal it's about being safe. The whole idea of reading correction glasses to make sure you can operate the A/C in a safe manor. So book 'em Danno!:)

Oh & for being fined for having yr dog off the lead ....the fines aren't sever enuf I reckon!!! There's so many irresponsible dog owners out there it's out of control!:ugh:
Wmk2

[Hasselhof]

There is being safe and there is being safe. In 20 years of wearing glasses, 15 of which have been full time, I can count on zero fingers the time my glasses have come off whilst driving, flying, mountain bike riding (including crashing both the car and the bike a couple of time), riding rollercoasters, skiing etc etc. In fact the only times my glasses have accidentally come off my face have been whilst swimming, and even then only while in the surf with pretty decent sets of waves.

I have no problem carrying a spare set of glasses (always in my headset bag which always flys with me and sits right next to my licence / medical), but $2500 fines over this issue is single-handedly managing to fail to take reality into account.

[djpil]

Agreed Hasselhoff. 40 years of aerobatics up to 9g and -5g including tumbles and inverted flat spins in open cockpit types my glasses have never felt like moving at all. One of the types I fly has the approved flight manual stowage behind the pilot seat (so the AFM is not accessible in flight) so that is where the spare glasses are as I'd hate to lose them in the cockpit.

[gobbledock]

No need to guess which one is the Regulator 'passing' on some of it's reg reform program and new rule set and which one is industry catching the updated processes? Perhaps she should have worn glasses??

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSWnMTJZv308E51bvWZsOvdgpWuls_7xnd0IUv2IvX nCbZCN-e3dhnWo9kUWg

[Aussie Bob]

Remember it's not about making sure you don't get fined or being legal it's about being safe

Ahhhh Wally, such words of wisdom.

There are two types of people out there, the first requires legislation to remain safe, the second determines that safety is their own responsibility.

I see you are a member of camp 1.

[Jack Ranga]

So, just get a busted arse set of frames, break up some glass from an old coke bottle, keep that and the busted arse frames in a plastic bag and tell them you are wearing the spares. Keep the spares at home for when you can't find your real ones in the morning??

[Super Cecil]

Shame really - the once admired, respected 'authority' reduced to the same caste as Council Rangers.
Just like council rangers, CASA attracts a certain sort of person :suspect:

[Kharon]

Super C - Just like council rangers, CASA attracts a certain sort of person
I am now going to take advice and see if I have to pull this thread. Following your non PC comments I have had an 'avalanche' of robust complaints. Not from the 'Rangers', they are happy not to through the lobotomy procedure. It's the 'Dog catchers' union causing the problems, it's all to do with the training they have to do before being useful. They seem to resent the unqualified competition. They have a point. :D