I’m not sure it even requires that level of forensic analysis.
CAR 228 refers?
Was either Pilot authorised under CASR Part 61 to act as PIC whilst simulating an engine failure in the aeroplane?
The obvious solution to such a question would be addressed with point 2 of my post above.
Someone at the regulator would clearly disagree with my rationale here, and believes they acted in accordance with a mandate of “safe skies for all”.
FOI, I am actually in the process of trying to understand the regulations at the moment so this is of interest.
So correct me if I am wrong:
CAR 228(a) & (b)(ii) states (paraphrased) that "A person commits an offence if the person manipulates the controls of a registered aircraft during flight and is not authorised under Part 61 of CASR to pilot the aircraft."
The preliminary ATSB accident report says "
Each occupant was qualified to operate the Cessna 441",. Presumably according to CAR 228 all is ok with this arrangement since all 3 on board are authorised to 'pilot the aircraft'.
I then mined into Part 61 and there are a number of clauses in there about the holder of an instrument rating undergoing proficiency checks. But the most relevant seems to be 61.1255 which says "A flight examiner is authorised to conduct an instrument proficiency check."
So did the occupant in the right-hand seat already hold an examiner rating? Because 61.1265 (2) (a) seems to suggest that if he holds a type rating on the aircraft and he holds the examiner rating then he is able to conduct the proficiency check as well.