Originally Posted by
andrewr
It's interesting that people are so hung up on Strict Liability but have no problem with the CASA guidance for ramp checks. Strict liability is no big deal and we deal with it every day e.g. traffic laws, but the CASA ramp check guidance that says we need to provide weight and balance, fuel calculations etc. for the previous flight is an issue. It is like the police pulling you over for a license check and asking to see your dashcam footage and GPS logs to verify that you stopped at all stop signs and weren't speeding.
I have no problem with a ramp check asking for license, medical, airworthiness certificate etc., but asking for calculations from your previous flight is without doubt investigating whether you have committed an offence and asking you to volunteer the evidence. It doesn't matter how friendly they are or how much they assure you they are only doing it for education, if CASA won't accept your assurance that you complied with regulations they are operating with an assumption that you did commit an offence.
Even if you haven't committed an offence, the rules and calculations can be technical and you don't want to be arguing them under the wing.
- Maybe the FOI has had a long day and makes an error in their mental arithmetic
- Maybe you flight planned at 55% power to avoid an extra fuel stop, but the FOI flies the same type and believes you should have used a higher fuel burn
- Maybe your new girlfriend lied about their weight
- Maybe your EFB software has a bug where it used incorrect winds and you really did land with less than the required amount of fuel
What Strict Liability means is that, like speeding, your only real defense is if they can't prove that it happened. It might be unwise to provide evidence that could prove the offence without taking legal advice first.
andrewr,
You are really reminding of "way back when" ---- all flights over 50 nm required an "approved" flight plan.
Had a dispute about fuel at the old Bankstown tower briefing office --- Using book figures for my Chipmunk, DCA man demands I use "RACNSW" figures ---- I refuse and departed. Greeted by DCA man on arrival Tamworth, of course I had legal reserves, they had to back off.
Another time, refiled in the air, with refiled endurance exactly the legal minimum. Tamworth again. On arrival, DCA man demanding to check the fuel ---- and how are you going to do that?? Drain the tanks ----
Izzatso? and who pays?. We settled on DCA would fill the tanks (a big tanks Cessna 205) and, low and behold I had plenty of reserves ---- and full tanks courtesy of the taxpayers. Part compensation because I had to overnight due last light at ASBK.
Much more recent years, one aircraft ramped twice in the one day, in NSW and QLD., CASA made it very plain (plane) they didn't like us much.
Another operator who was on the nose with CASA --- ramped in Cairns, the delay resulted in a B727 load of fish going rotten, have you ever had to dispose of 20 tonnes of rotten fish to all the EPA rules. The cost and the smell was horrendous.
It was established (at great cost) in the AAT that the B727 was "compliant", the AWIs "not airworthy" list was, in simple terms --- 100% wrong.
Right up to the present time, CASA (as it is now -- what comes next, after the present Senate inquiry) has used ramp checks as a weapon, much more so than a real air safety education tool.
For those of you who have never had the experience ---- good on you, let's hope your luck continues, but don't suggest your experience is "typical".
As I sad in a previous post, CASA will not commit to a legally defined list of what has to be complied with on a ramp check ----- not "advisory information", but a legally binding checklist ----
Why?? Because the present situation is too convenient.
Tootle pip!!