Legal experts: CAO 20.18.10

[Virtually There]

CAO 20.18.10 states:

10.1 In the case of a charter or regular public transport aircraft, all instruments and equipment fitted to the aircraft must be serviceable before take-off, unless:What is the definition of "charter aircraft"?

Does it mean "an aircraft conducting a charter operation"?

Does it mean "an aircraft in the charter category" (maintenance release)?

There is no definition in CAO 20.18 itself.

We have emailed CASA about this and the response aligns with the first interpretation (charter operation).

In practical terms, CAO 20.18.10.1 would preclude any aircraft in the charter category from conducting any operation (charter, airwork, private etc) if it has any unservicability (as defined under 20.18 and assuming the aircraft has no MEL and no prior CASA permission for the unservicability).

However, if interpreted another way, it means a charter category aircraft with an unservicability (autopilot, for example) could conduct any operation apart from charter (and obviously RPT) so long as it complies with the rest of 20.18 (VFR - Apendix I etc).

So what is the definition of "charter aircraft" and what do you base that definition on?

Thanks for any unambiguous response.

[Virtually There]

If you are wondering why I am asking this after the CASA response, it is because the response appears to contradict itself. We are awaiting a clarification from CASA, but as everyone knows, we could be waiting a long time . . .

[5-in-50]

Unfortunately I cannot state with any certainty the definition of 'charter aircraft'.

I do however believe the meaning is simply 'an aircraft engaged in a charter operation'.

Yes, unless an aircraft has an approved MEL, it is subject to the conditions outlined in 20.18 and cannot be used for charter unless ALL instruments, exluding passenger convenience items, are working. That's exactly how it reads.

I think this is another example of the industry outgrowing the regulations. What once was sufficient and appropriate, is now ambiguous and risking becoming irrelevant.

[Virtually There]

For some months after we asked CASA to clarify this, we were of the opinion that "charter aircraft" referred to "an aircraft engaged in a charter operation".

The answer we were given - with specific reference to 20.18.10.1 - did not define the term, but was along the lines of (direct quote):
If a Charter aircraft is being operated on a private VFR flight, and an instrument . . . was to become unserviceable (and) the instrument is not a requirement for VFR, the aircraft can fly VFR.In this instance, "Charter aircraft" refers to a "charter category" aircraft conducting a private flight.

However, if the definition of "charter aircraft" in 20.18.10.1 means a "charter category aircraft", then clearly the above aircraft could not conduct the flight - it could not conduct any flight with an unservicable instrument or equpiment.

So on the one hand, CASA has defined "charter aircraft" as being in the "charter category", and yet it has told us we can still fly private etc despite 20.18.10.1 - although, if they really wanted to get technical, they could point out the fact that 20.18.10.1 states the aircraft cannot take off (which is different to already being in the air).

Until recently this was all hypothetical. However, we are now faced with a situation that has led us to start questioning what we were originally told.

[Virtually There]

20.18.3
Instrumentation for flight under Visual Flight Rules
RPT aeroplanes and large charter aeroplanes
3.1 An aeroplane engaged in:
(a) a regular public transport operation (RPT); or
(b) a charter operation that has maximum take-off weight exceeding 5 700 kg — a charter operation;The only other reference to "charter aeroplanes" (as opposed to helis etc) defines them as "engaged in a charter operation".

Subsection 3 appears before Subsection 10 (with no other specific reference), and so it could be argued sets a precedent for any latter definition of the same term.


No wonder law pays more than airwork. :sad:

[yr right]

For it to be used in charter it must have the log book statement in charter then it must meet the requirements for it to be in charter in the maintenance system.

[yr right]

The aircraft must meet the higher catogory before flight. Meaning rpt is over charter which is over Aireral work etc. you may drop down a cat if only you have an EO an mel or a pus. Then the M/R must be endorsed in part 2 or to what else you may be using stating what the aircraft may be flown as or when. Example aircraft ferry flight between 30/09/14 to 10/10/14 day Vfr only most direct route to XYZ. Min crew permitted only. IAW pus ABC. Or as per say auto pilot U/S. Aircraft must be flown with two crew IAW MEL blah blah. Only execption to this is a mercy mission at which the aircraft is grounded at the end of the flight and has to be released by casa.

In other words it's a can of worms

[Virtually There]

Yeah, we've got all that.

My question is, with specific reference to 20.18.10, what does "charter aircraft" mean? What is it's legal definition, and what is the basis for that definition?

[evilducky]

Minor thread drift here, but anyone else having trouble getting access to CAOs through Comlaw? Getting 'An error has occured, please contact the system administrator' every time.

[Virtually There]

Yes, I've been getting that. Try the cached version through Google.

[thunderbird five]

Found after a 1.7 second word search of CAR Vol 1::eek:

CAR 2 (6) (b)

(b) when an aircraft is being employed in charter operations, it
shall be classified as a charter aircraft;

[Virtually There]

Thank you. You're a better lawyer than I am (I'm obviously not a lawyer)! :D

This simply backs our argument that "charter aircraft" refers to an aircraft in charter operations and therefore, an aircraft in the charter category can continue to conduct airwork and private operations with an unservicability provided it complies with the rest of CAO20.18.

:ok:

[yr right]

No it can't. It must have an EO pus or an mel for it to fly even if it's not operating in charter. The aircraft must be maintain to the highest standard on the lbs. It may operate in a lower cat with only if that is met.

[yr right]

If you wish to fly it then the lbs must be changed and taken out of charter cat and be re submitted to casa.

[Lumps]

If you wish to fly it then the lbs must be changed and taken out of charter cat and be re submitted to casa.

Really? wouldnt a simple endorsement in the MR suffice? It is then up to the PIC to comply with the MR. Most of the rules can be traced back to some sort of base in reality, but resubmitting logbook statements to casa seems to do nothing but hinder operations.

[thorn bird]

"but resubmitting logbook statements to casa seems and does nothing but hinder operations."

Isn't that the whole intent and purpose of the regulations??

[evilducky]

Yes, I've been getting that. Try the cached version through Google.

But if use the cached version I might not get up to date copies :ok: And at the rate things are changing at the moment...

Thanks though, didn't realize google cached that much stuff.

[Virtually There]

No it can't. It must have an EO pus or an mel for it to fly even if it's not operating in charter. The aircraft must be maintain to the highest standard on the lbs. It may operate in a lower cat with only if that is met.

If you wish to fly it then the lbs must be changed and taken out of charter cat and be re submitted to casa.
Right now, CAO 20.18.10 is being used as justification to prevent the aircraft from flying. We've established that there is no legal basis for this.

However, you're now saying there are other regulations that prevent a charter category aircraft from flying with an unserviceability. Do you have a reference?

With the Comlaw site down, it makes it harder to search (I don't have physical copies of all the regs), so perhaps you could point me in the right direction.

Also, what happens if you are flying to the outback and an instrument or piece of equipment becomes unservicable?

What you are saying would make other CAO's redundant. To wit:

CAO 20.18.4
4.1A Subject to paragraphs 4.1B and 4.1C, an aeroplane engaged
(b) in charter operations;
must not be operated under the Instrument Flight Rules unless it is equipped with a serviceable automatic pilot approved by CASA that has the following capabilities:

4.1C If the automatic pilot fitted to an aeroplane engaged:
(a) in charter operations;
loses a capability referred to in paragraph 4.1A, the aeroplane may, if the pilot is satisfied that it is safe to do so, be operated under the Instrument Flight Rules by a single pilot at any time within the period of 3 days commencing on the day on which the automatic pilot loses the capability.Why the provision for 3 days to fix the problem if what you state is correct and the logbooks have to be resubmitted right there and then?

[5-in-50]

If you're still having trouble accessing CommLaw, try viewing the documents via OzRunways.

Open OzRunways, tap the Documents icon and tap CAOs. It will download and open.

Ironically, I disagree with 'yrright' :)

[oldrotorhead]

Just to add to the controversy, I have personally had several discussions with CASA in the Tamworth Office in recent times over this very para (10.1) in CAO20.18, viz:
"10.1 In the case of a charter aircraft etc..... it carries, or is fitted with, under subregulation 207 (2) of CAR 1988, must be serviceable etc...."
The interpretation from Airworthiness in that office (which resulted in a directive to change the wording in an Ops Manual I had written and submitted to them) is that "all instruments and equipment" in fact, means only those instruments and equipment which CASA has directed be fitted to the aircraft in accordance with CAR 207(2). That would not necessarily, for example apply to a second VHF COM, NAV or GPS if it were fitted, or any other equipped not fitting the bill as being directed to be fitted under the CAR.
I must admit I'm still not totally convinced, but I am not a lawyer either. The inclusion of the reference to CAR 207 (2) in that particular para (10.1) is however a relatively recent change to the Order (Jan 2013 I believe).
Just sayin"....

[Virtually There]

207(2) still refers to "class of operations" and not "category of aircraft".

We're basically talking about an aircraft in the charter category conducting almost exclusively private and airwork operations (don't ask why it's still maintained in the charter category - that's another issue).

If a piece of equipment fails - and it could literally be something as simple as a light bulb, according to 20.18.10 - then without an MEL (permissible unservicability being a function of the MEL) or executive order, the aircraft could not fly charter operations.

But it can still fly private and airwork ops. And while the aircraft still needs to be maintained to the charter standard, surely that comes under the maintenance schedule and does not apply to actual operations (assuming the unservicability has been entered in the MR)?

Simply put, our interpretation is that if an aircraft is in the charter category, it must be maintained to the charter category standards and - if it is to conduct a charter flight - it must conform to the charter category for that operation, but not for any lesser operation.

CAO 20.18.10.2 also clearly states:
Where flight is conducted with unserviceable instruments or equipment under the provisions of paragraph 10.1 or 10.1A, the unserviceable instruments or equipment shall be prominently placarded ‘UNSERVICEABLE’ or removed from the aircraft.So the CAO is stating that a flight IS permissible under 10.1 or 10.1A as long as the unservicable equipment or instrument is placarded.

Again, if there is another regulation that turns this on its head, I would like to see it. I've looked everywhere - though admittedly I might be looking in the wrong places.

If yr right can point me in the direction of any reg that backs up what he is saying, then that would be very helpful.

[Creampuff]

Don't worry: All of this will be made clear in the new 1998 regulations. When they come in, there will be no need for CAOs.

Until then....

I think your interpretation is correct.

The key provision that gives you your definition of e.g. "charter aircraft" is regulation 2(6) of the CARs 1988:(6) For the purposes of these Regulations, an aircraft shall be classified in accordance with the type of operations in which it is being employed at any time, as follows:

(a) when an aircraft is being employed in aerial work operations, it shall be classified as an aerial work aircraft;

(b) when an aircraft is being employed in charter operations, it shall be classified as a charter aircraft;

(c) when an aircraft is being employed in regular public transport operations, it shall be classified as a regular public transport aircraft;

(d) when an aircraft is being employed in private operations, it shall be classified as a private aircraft.I can't be bothered looking up the reg linking the defined terms in the regs to the Orders.

[Virtually There]

Thanks for that. It's in Vol 2 Part 5:

5 Civil Aviation Orders
(2) Expressions used in Civil Aviation Orders shall, unless the contrary intention appears, have the same meanings as in these regulations.

[Creampuff]

You're welcome. :ok:

[yr right]

Your confusion is that your trying to place flying ops with maintenance. You can't do this. When anything is placed on the M/R it has to be done IAW. Iaw an EO an mel a pus. If you can't do it IAW you can't do it. The lbs states what the aircraft is maintaimed to. If your
Flying a charter aircraft in private it's still maintained to charter. You just can not add anything to the M/R with out it being IAW.

The lbs states the standard of maintence. Flying ops dose NOT set the maintence. As I've said maintence is set to the highesr standard the aircraft is flying to.

[Virtually There]

If you're still having trouble accessing CommLaw, try viewing the documents via OzRunways.

Open OzRunways, tap the Documents icon and tap CAOs. It will download and open.

Ironically, I disagree with 'yrright' :)
Sorry mate, I don't have OzRunways and the CommLaw site has been down as long as I've been trying to research this. I don't have hard copies and the cached versions all have dead links, making it hard.

[yr right]

So 5 in 50 just as a matter of interest how many M/R have you issued. How many pus have you done. How many times have you invoked a MEL. Just as a matter of interest ?

[Virtually There]

Your confusion is that your trying to place flying ops with maintenance. You can't do this. When anything is placed on the M/R it has to be done IAW. Iaw an EO an mel a pus. If you can't do it IAW you can't do it.
This is where I'm a little confused: surely IAW means "in accordance with all regulations", not just the maintenance schedule?

Which is why I asked the question: if a non-essential piece of equipment for a private VFR flight fails away from home (a light bulb, for example), and you can still conduct the flight according to 20.18.10.2, and the aircraft happens to be in the charter category, then does that mean a mercy flight has to be declared to get home? Because that doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

What would you do?

[yr right]

No a mercy mission can only be used in extreme emergency. Where a person or persons have a risk to life.

No flying ops are different. The lbs holds all the requirements for maintenance that is required on that aircraft. The lbs holds how what when maintenance is required.

Anything down to washing your aircraft can be considered maintenance. If you look at your M/R it will tell you what your maintence schedule is. This you can only change by changing your lbs.

[5-in-50]

So 5 in 50 just as a matter of interest how many M/R have you issued. How many pus have you done. How many times have you invoked a MEL. Just as a matter of interest ?

I'd like to avoid thread drift, but since you're interested the answer is none. Regardless, I have an opinion based on my personal interpretation and what I see the masses doing in the industry on a daily basis. So I (quite respectfully) disagree with your interpretation.

[Creampuff]

An unserviceability in an aircraft may be 'legal' when the aircraft is employed in private operations but not 'legal' if the same aircraft is employed in another classification of operations.

If your question, VT, is whether you can conduct a charter flight in aircraft X from A to B and, having suffered an unserviceability in an instrument or piece of equipment required for a charter flight, you're allowed to conduct a private flight in aircraft X from B to somewhere else, the answer is: Yes, subject to some provisos.

The provisos are that:

- the instrument or piece of equipment must not be required to be serviceable to employ the aircraft in a private flight

- the unserviceability must be recorded in the maintenance release or approved alternative for the aircraft,

- the instrument or piece of equipment must be placarded unserviceable, and

- most importantly, the flight must be in the private category.[I]f a non-essential piece of equipment for a private VFR flight fails away from home (a light bulb, for example), and you can still conduct the flight according to 20.18.10.2, and the aircraft happens to be in the charter category, then does that mean a mercy flight has to be declared to get home?No, provided:

- the unserviceability of the bulb is recorded in the maintenance release or approved alternative for the aircraft,

- the instrument or equipment is placarded unserviceable (if it's just a bulb, it might just be "Landing light not working" sticker under the landing light switch), and

- most importantly, the flight home must not be a charter pretending to be private.

[thorn bird]

What I find completely bizarre is this debate is occurring over what a regulation means.

Having plowed through our part 61 a few times and still completely in the dark as to what they mean or intend
should it not be an imperative for Guv mint regulators to write regulations that are unambiguous, so us poor members of the great unwashed class can decipher what they mean and therefore comply with them, rather than us taking a guess, thus generating massive income for bottom feeding lawyers ( Creamie excepted of course)

Wouldn't it be wonderful if we as an industry could bring a class action against CAsA for deliberately writing indecipherable regulations, with malice and aforethought to trap the unsuspecting into breaches attracting massive penalties ( figure I owe the Guv mint around 30 million dollars in penalties, and that's only going back ten years, for not filling in my log book in a timely manner).

Ignorance of the law is no excuse!!!.

Authority keeps promoting that, but shouldn't it be a mitigating excuse that the laws are not understandable to them that must comply with them, rather than just the lawyers??

Part 61 has descended upon us.

Terrence F..ck witson says the sky hasn't fallen in!!

Give it time Terry, you may just get to use your public provided A380 endo. in anger yet, that's if you can find an FO to fly with.

[Virtually There]

Hi yr right, I get most of that. Perhaps I can phrase it this way:

As a LAME, what documents (regulations) do you use for reference when maintaining a Class B aircraft to the charter category standard?

Put simply, where would I be able to view the difference between (or definition of) the "maintenance standard" of a charter aircraft, airwork aircraft and private aircraft?

Put even more simply, if I came to you as a LAME with a Class B aircraft and asked you what category I should put it in, what would you tell me to read first to educate myself on the differences in maintenance schedules, requirements (and obviously costs)?

I've been through Part 4, 4A, 4B of the CARs, and CAO 100.5, and can't find what I'm looking for. I'm obviously looking in the wrong place.

Thanks.

[Virtually There]

Hi Creampuff, gotta cook dinner - will be back later - but that's what I was thinking.

I'm just having a hard time understanding what yr right means in regards to "maintenance standard". I thought that was simply to do with the scheduled maintenance standard and that the other regs (as highlighted) still allowed the PIC to fly in a lower category if the aircraft didn't meet those standards in-between schedules.

Obviously, the next time the aircraft went in for scheduled maintenance, it would then be maintained to the charter category.

That's really the crux of this whole debate.

[5-in-50]

Flying schools are prime examples where aircraft MRs may be in the Charter / NVFR categories, but flown Airwork / Day consistently with an unservicability placarded and endorsed appropriately.

[Draggertail]

An interesting thread here. Our establishment has always interpreted the regs in the same way as Creampuff. Private, aerial work and charter aircraft are maintained to the same standard, for example CASA schedule 5. The difference for charter is that the aircraft must have the required equipment. The engine must also not have exceeded the manufacturers limit for hours or calendar time. It cannot operate “on condition”.

If an unserviceability occurs which affects charter but not aerial work or private operations the aircraft is placarded and the MR is annotated with the U/S and with the added line of “not to be used for charter until ……. replaced”. Once the U/S item has been replaced the aircraft is able to be used for charter once more.

[Sunfish]

...And this thread demonstrates conclusively why Australian regulations are ****.

[Virtually There]

I don't wish to get into specifics - and I certainly don't want to cast aspersions, as the regs are difficult to interpret at the best of times (well, you may be able to interpret them, but there's no guarantee there's not another sub-reg, part, paragraph or clause lurking somewhere that completely contradicts what you've just read!) - but a couple of examples provided here are on the money. It's reassuring to see them interpreted as we have.

Indeed, our correspondence with CASA also aligns with these views (it's just the way it was worded left a little bit of ambiguity).

Thanks to those who have responded. Our only aim with this exercise has been to seek clarity so that we can all abide by the regs and continue to fly safely.

[kalavo]

As has already been alluded to, there is a crossover between "pilot rules" and "engineer rules", and both sides don't necessarily understand each other.

Our aircraft are maintained to charter category.
Any defect is written on the maintenance release.
An item can be "temporarily cleared" (not the legal definition, but trying to keep it simple here) by applying the appropriate MEL.
If an MEL is not available (rare for things that pilots would accept anyway), we can apply to CASA for a PUS, which for pilots is effectively the same as an MEL.
We continue flying under the restrictions of the MEL or PUS until the fault is rectified by an engineer.

The MEL will contain the restrictions you've made mention of. Ie "aircraft restricted to VFR operations only" or "aircraft only to be flown in private or aerial work operations"

[yr right]

Casa now demands that aircraft in charter have a SOM and sched 5 cannot be used. Btw.

Next your not allowed to interpret regs. You are allowed to have an understanding. This is unless you have legal training.

VT have you consulted your maintenance org.

Next someone said here about flying schools and operate documentation. That's what I've said. EO PUS or MEL.

[Creampuff]

That these simple matters are still the subject of confusion and uncertainty after decades of expensive "simplification" is an appalling indictment.

The answer to the question whether e.g. a blown navigation light bulb has to be changed before further flight has NOTHING to do with the schedule of maintenance or the system of maintenance against which the aircraft is being maintained.

The answer is determined by the proper interpretation and application of 20.18 and the classification of the operation in which the aircraft is proposed to be employed for the specific flight.

An aircraft can be employed in a charter operation from A to B in the morning and a private operation from B back to A or somewhere else in the afternoon. The instrument and equipment serviceability requirements for the flight A to B in the morning are determined by 20.18. The instrument and equipment serviceability requirements for the flight B back to A or somewhere else in the afternoon are determined by 20.18. The proper interpretation and application of 20.18 will produce different results for each of those flights.

If my aircraft has a charter MR and is being maintained against an approved system of maintenance, it can be employed in charter operations. But it can also be employed in private operations. What operations I choose to employ my aircraft in is my business.

If it flies from A to B and along the way an instrument required for charter operations fails, the aircraft cannot continue in charter operations from B (unless the aircraft has a PUS/MEL or SFP covering the item). However, if the instrument is not required for private operations, the aircraft can be employed in private operations (after the item is entered in the MR/approved alternative and placarded U/S).

[oldrotorhead]

This thread has certainly generated some opinion and common sense attitude, however, I for one am still not convinced. As I said, I personally had some interaction with CASA over this very matter and the clear interpretation of 20.18 in this respect was that only the instruments and equipment directed to be fitted by CAR 207 (2) are required to be serviceable. (see AIP GEN 1.5 as an example) So, say your No 2 COM was U/S, you may not necessarily have to apply for a PUS to be able to carry on. Another example might be an aircraft which no longer operates under the IFR but is still fitted with 2 attitude indicators, and one of them goes U/S - no approval or PUS would be required from CASA to operate a charter flight the VFR.
One thing that the CASA AWI was however, emphatic about, was the requirement to ensure that any bit of equipment like those examples, was placarded as U/S as per the CAO and, if removed, was removed in accordance with approved maintenance instructions/data/tools, etc (which might rule that procedure out for pilots without the right approvals , tools etc.)
Cheers, ORH

[Creampuff]

Not sure of what, specifically, you are not convinced ORH, but in any event…

Some history of the reference to 207(2) in 20.18 will help to understand where we are at and why (and why ORH's explanation of the current operation of 20.18 is, in my view, the correct one.)

The opening words to 10.1 of 20.18 used to say:In the case of a charter or regular public transport aircraft, all instruments and equipment fitted to the aircraft must be serviceable before take-off, unless [one of the listed exceptions – PUS/MEL, CASA approval/SFP, PAX convenience item – applied.]

Those words were interpreted to mean what they said.

So, for example, if an aircraft that was to be engaged in charter or regular public transport had a UHF radio fitted, the UHF radio had to be serviceable unless one of the exceptions in 10.1 applied. In other words, even though a UHF radio was not required to be fitted to the aircraft in the first place, having chosen to fit a UHF radio it had to be serviceable in the aircraft while it was engaged in charter or RPT, unless one of the exceptions applied. This was patently silly (although note that in some cases this kind of equipment can have W&B effects, so flying with it removed – as opposed to fitted but U/S – can have safety implications).

Consequently, 20.18 has been amended so that the opening words of 10.1 now say: In the case of a charter or regular public transport aircraft, all instruments and equipment that it carries, or is fitted with, [b]under subregulation 207 (2) of CAR 1988 must be serviceable before take-off, unless: …[Bolding added]

So, if an aircraft engaged in e.g. charter is required to have e.g. only 1 VHF but the aircraft is fitted with 2 VHFs, the aircraft can be engaged in charter if one of the VHFs is U/S (and placarded as U/S), without a PUS, approval, SFP etc.

[yr right]

The aircraft is maintained to one and one only maintenance system. It cannot be changed with out the lbs being reissues period.

The aircraft can be flown to what ever cat you wish to. But the maintenance system will restrict you if you have an unserviceable part. You will require as I've said an EO pus or mel even to fly in private period. The aircraft maintence dose not change because you fly charter there and private back. One maintence system is all you have.

[yr right]

So you don't have an mel EO or pus and you place an unserviceablity on the m/r then how do you release it and what do you do it IAW ?????

[oldrotorhead]

Sorry Creampuff. I believe my current interpretation (as delivered by CASA) is correct also. What I mean by "unconvinced" is that I'm not persuaded to the contrary by the conflicting arguments on the thread.
Cheers.

[Creampuff]

So you don't have an mel EO or pus and you place an unserviceablity on the m/r then how do you release it and what do you do it IAW ?????This is why your complete lack of flying experience makes it very courageous for you to comment on these issues, Steve.

The system or schedule of maintenance for an aircraft does not determine whether an aircraft may be operated with an instrument or piece of equipment U/S. CAO 20.18 does.

Stick to tuning the piano. Leave the playing to the players. :ok:

[yr right]

Think you may have to go in to re education. By dropping to a lower flying cat it dose not drop the maintence requirements which are set in the lbs. Which can also be seen on the M/R. This is unless for all these years we all been doing it wrong !!!!

[Draggertail]

yr right, you may be right! But you appear to be the one out of step here. It would help if you could back up your arguments with some legislative reference.

[Creampuff]

Let's do it by example.

Imagine an aircraft freshly out of maintenance and for which a maintenance release has been issued in the charter category, IFR. The aircraft MTOW is not more than 5,700 kgs.

The aircraft is happily employed in charter operations for a few weeks, until one of the two pressure altimeters fails on a trip from A to B.

Question for yr right: What rule prohibits the aircraft from being flown from B to somewhere else, in the private category?

It seems to me that unless the Flight Manual for the aircraft requires two serviceable altimeters, it's perfectly legal to fly the aircraft from B to somewhere else in the private category with only one serviceable altimeter (provided the unserviceable altimeter is entered in the MR and placarded U/S). See provisions 3.4 and 10.1A of CAO 20.18, and CARs 2(6) and 5(2).

Please: Just nominate the regulation that prohibits the aircraft from being employed in operations in the private category, with the second altimeter U/S in the MR and placarded.

This happens in the real world all the time. It's just that the piano tuners don't know about it until the piano players decide they need the second altimeter repaired so that the aircraft can again be employed in charter operations.

[yr right]

In that case the aircraft would have a mel and that can be used.

[thorn bird]

All this suggests to me that the bullsh..t regulations almost guarantees that defects only occur on the final leg to home base!!

[Virtually There]

In that case the aircraft would have a mel and that can be used.
An MEL is not a requirement. A charter aircraft may or may not have one in accordance with 20.18.10.4

Indeed, you are confusing "charter operations" with "charter category" (which simply categorises the operations the aircraft is allowed to conduct):
10.4 The holder of an Air Operator’s Certificate authorising charter operations: (a) may have a minimum equipment list or lists for the aircraft used to conduct those operationsAn MEL simply allows you to fly charter operations in accordance with 20.18.10.1

But it can still fly private or airwork in accordance with 20.18.10.1A

So you don't have an mel EO or pus and you place an unserviceablity on the m/r then how do you release it and what do you do it IAW ?????
As above, and in accordance with CAO 20.18, which stipulates that an aircraft can still fly with an unservicability as long as it complies with the regs.

You know, I keep asking you for a reference - for some sort of legislation - to support what you have been saying all this time.

Yet every time I ask, you ignore the question.

So I will respectfully ask you one last time: where is the legislative reference to support what you are saying?

[Virtually There]

Also, what does "higher standard" mean? I've just looked at our last 100-hourly and it states the aircraft (in the charter category) was maintained to Schedule 5 - which is exactly what Draggertail said.

[Virtually There]

CAR 207 Requirements according to operations on which Australian aircraft used
(1) A person must not use an Australian aircraft in a class of operation if CASA has not authorised and approved the particular type of aircraft for that use.
Penalty: 50 penalty units.
(2) A person must not use an Australian aircraft in a class of operation if the aircraft is not:
(a) fitted with instruments; and
(b) fitted with, or carrying, equipment, including emergency equipment;
that CASA has approved and directed.This does not support what you are saying, yr right.

Where is the regulation that supports what you are saying?

[Kharon]

Perhaps we need this guy to tune up our regulations. He seems to be able to not only identify the problem, but knows exactly how to fix it, make it all better.

Expert help.

[Creampuff]

VT is correct. yr right is nt.

[yr right]

I will say this for the last time. Having been someone that has written used mels etc on muti Engine turbine engine in remote areas of Australia I think I may have a little bit of knowlege on this subject also having released more aircraft than I care to admit.

20.18 is min equip required for each cat. It is not any way saying that if you are in a higher cat you can drop down and fly. If your in a higher cat YOUR maintenance must reflect what the LBS and the M/R state. In other words if you are in charter you can't just drop down a cat and fly and enter it in the M/R unless it is IAW.

If you won't to do it go ahead. You get your penalty points. It won't worry me. As I said you are not allowed to go against what the LBS states. It's maintence and not flying ops. Period.

Cheers

[yr right]

Btw 20.18 is not IAW

[Eddie Dean]

There seems to be confusion over class of operation and category of maintenance, then again that may not be the case because the confusion is confusing me.

[Creampuff]

I think I may have a little bit of knowlege on this subject.I’m sure you have a little bit of knowledge on this subject.In other words if you are in charter you can't just drop down a cat and fly and enter it in the M/R unless it is IAW.Irrespective of WTF ‘IAW’ means, yes you can.

You can employ an aircraft with a charter category MR in a private flight, and the instruments and equipment required for that flight are determined by the private aircraft provisions of 20.18, not the charter aircraft provisions of 20.18.

What you can’t do is employ an aircraft in a charter flight without a charter or higher category MR and serviceable instruments and equipment in accordance with the charter aircraft provisions of 20.18.If you won't to do it go ahead. You get your penalty points.In order to have to pay penalty points, you have to have breached a rule.

What rule is breached if an aircraft with a charter category MR is employed in a private flight, with an instrument U/S that 20.18 says is required for a charter flight but not a private flight? Nominate the regulation.

Given your vast experience and deep knowledge of the regulatory requirements, it should be easy. :ok:

[Mach E Avelli]

Yr right, I usually refrain from personal criticisms here, but really, to have us believe that one suffering a dyslexic condition could write a MEL is stretching it.
I can not imagine how CASA could accept it, if the clarity of your posts here, and general understanding of a quite simple CAO are anything to go by. And as an aside, the person who accepts or rejects a MEL item on the day is the pilot, not the engineer. His role may be to interpret and write it up, but if the pilot has other reasons for not accepting it, it's game over.
Creampuff and others here demonstrate a fine legal understanding of the concept of allowable dispatch at a lower level of operation when items are missing or unserviceable - you do seem to lack that same comprehension.
If Civil Aviation Orders, CASRs etc are not 'IAW' (whatever you take that abbreviation to mean) then WTF is?
And what do you mean by 'lbs'. Pounds? If you mean logbooks, hey aren't they a service record of an airframe, engine etc. Surely what's on the certificate of airworthiness determines the category?

[Creampuff]

I think you’ll find that lbs in yr right-ese means “Logbook Statement”. In yr right’s world, the logbook statement is the horse dragging the entire regulatory cart. A logbook statement is, in fact, the cart that follows the election to use either the manufacturer’s maintenance schedule, the CASA maintenance schedule (i.e. Schedule 5 of the CARs) or an approved system of maintenance as the schedule of maintenance for an aircraft.

(I also think you’ll find that the certificate of airworthiness certifies the compliance of an airframe with the type design, in the applicable airworthiness category e.g. transport, normal, utility…. . Charter etc is merely the classification of the operation in which the airframe happens to be engaged from time to time.)

[Mach E Avelli]

Thanks for the clarification. In recent times I have been working with the much simpler NZ rules so have lost track of some of the finer points of our obscure and multiple layers of rules and regulations. When parts 121, 125, 135 etc finally arrive here, my understanding is that charter will disappear as a separate category and it will all be transport. Or private.

[Virtually There]

I will say this for the last time. Having been someone that has written used mels etc on muti Engine turbine engine in remote areas of Australia I think I may have a little bit of knowlege on this subject also having released more aircraft than I care to admit.
Hi yr right, the MEL's you used at work and continually refer to in this thread were issued under 20.18.10.4 in accordance with 37 (2).

Surely as an experienced LAME you know where MELs come from.

20.18 is min equip required for each cat. It is not any way saying that if you are in a higher cat you can drop down and fly.
No, it is the minimum requirement for each operation - not category.

I think this is where you are getting confused. I don't blame you, because this is exactly where I was originally confused - hence asking what the definition of "charter aircraft" was in 20.18

"Charter aircraft" as defined under CAR Vol 2 (6) (b) is "an aircraft employed in charter operations".

If you won't to do it go ahead. You get your penalty points. It won't worry me. As I said you are not allowed to go against what the LBS states. It's maintence and not flying ops. Period
20.18 clearly refers to "flying ops", as defined by the CARs.

Part 1 of the MR clearly refers to "Operational Category" - does it not?

The decision to fly or not is ultimately left to the PIC - is it not?

Mate, I've tried to be patient and give you the benefit of the doubt as you were clearly trying to help. But if you can't provide anything to support what you have been saying all this time, then do you honestly expect me to believe anything you write?

You talk of "penalty points", but you can't even point to the regs. I mean, c'mon - what "penalty points" are you even talking about?

I don't want to be rude, but why do you keep ignoring all our requests to point to the regulations you have based your entire argument on?

Is it because they don't exist and everything you have been saying is simply based on your own opinion? Because opinions don't stand up in court - sorry.

[yr right]

IAW In accordance with. 20.18 dose not give you the right to drop a cat to bring a plane back if it's in a higher cat with being done IAW ie mel pus or EO.

[Virtually There]

And where in the regulations does it state that?

We are going around in circles here.

[Eddie Dean]

To help with the confusion: CAAP 43-1-1 says that I can "downgrade" my IFR aircraft to VFR, as long as VFR requirements of 20.18 are adhered to.

[yr right]

And where dose it stTe you can. It dosent. 20.18 is min requirement list for each cat. That's all.
If your in charter cat and it's all serviceable then you can drop down and do what you won't.
If your in charter and you have an unserviceablity you just can't do it with having soning to do it IAW. That's why we have mels.

If you are in doubt call casa. Then let's us all know because I spend a s$&@ load of time traveling to get gear back and we all a brunch of dills and creamy the only one that knows the truth.

And as for being dxlexic and writing mel and som it's simple as. As for personal attacks your big boys.

This is bread and butter stuff.

You can't go outside of your lbs or m/r and the maintence system it says you have to do.

[Virtually There]

Mate, with respect, you need to learn how to read legislation.

20.18 - as I (and others) have already told you - states the minimum requirements for each OPERATION - not category. It is clearly defined in the CARs.

You also need to go back and read this thread, as I have already posted our response from CASA, which aligns with what everyone else has been saying.

Our CASA response is contrary to what you have stated.

I have refrained from personal attacks - and will continue to do so - but you have offered absolutely no evidence to support any of your claims.

And, strangely, each time someone asks you to reference your claims, you avoid the question.

Why is that?

[Virtually There]

I think this thread has served its useful purpose.

I have my answer, almost everyone is in consensus, and the regs are pretty clear.

Unless someone else can point to any other legislation that overrides the regs already referenced, then I think it's case closed.

[mcgrath50]

This is a common scenario where we 'drop a category'

You fly Day VFR charter in a SE plane to a destination, drop off the pax and come back at night. The plane has charter on the MR but you are flying back as a private flight and can therefore do SE NVFR.

In the same way if I got out to the destination, restarted and found that an instrument required for charter but not private was busted I could still return to base (having made the appropriate notes on the MR and placards etc.)

You are confusing maintenance category with category of flight which is what is referred to when we talk about instrument requirements for VFR/IFR Charter v Private, as well as night flight.