Originally Posted by
Lead Balloon
I don't think a "rock" is either a "machine" or "craft" in terms of the definition (which definition in Australia is, BTW, different to the one in the NZ CAA Act). Words have meanings.
The difficulty I see in your logic is that it does not result in you being exonerated. "Yes Mr Pudniks, it may well be that every object known to mankind fits the definition, in which case your PG fits the definition. We are dealing only with the charges against you. We will deal with the paper airplane throwers if and when they are charged."
As someone pointed out earlier, just about the only work done by the definition of "flight" in the regulations is the calculation of flight time for pilot logbooks. That's because flight time in a pilot's logbook includes - in the case of heavier-than-air aircraft - some time when the aircraft in question is not flying in fact. For example, heavy metal pilots will usually log 'chock to chock' time. (And, in any event, you didn't read paragraph (b) of the definition which does not mention power and, therefore, was drafted on the basis that a subset aircraft can be in "flight" without being powered.)
The charges mention "performed a duty essential to the operation of an Aus aircraft during flight time". So in trying to be fancy, they introduced the problem of "under its own power". For a PG, where is the thrust? Where is the power plant?
The point of my "every object" argument is that is clearly not what the authors meant. They meant aircraft that placed "an action" on the air - hence derive support from "reactions" of the air. So the statutory interpretation ought to consider that. How can we make every (un-powered and powered) object that moves through the air illegal - then allow CASA to pick and choose who to prosecute on a day to day basis. That is absurd. If kitesurfers are aircraft too, then CASA suddenly has a misfeasance problem for
not prosecuting them!
For me the kitesurfer vs paraglider is a good example. How can both fit the definition? Yet only one is "an aircraft". This inconsistency is the vital issue of statutory interpretation. It also has an easy visual appeal to be debated. These two craft are identical in terms of the principle of operation, which is handy.
PS. A quick reminder, that my PG licence / certificate was unlawfully suspended by the club SAFA, which holds an unconstitutional monopoly over my freedom of movement. Oh well.