PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - Basic Aeronautical Knowledge questions
View Single Post
Old 25th Apr 2022, 22:59
  #100 (permalink)  
Clinton McKenzie
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Canberra ACT Australia
Posts: 721
Received 247 Likes on 125 Posts
In Australia, up until recently the regulation was reg 138 of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988, which required the PIC to comply with, among other things, all limitations in an aircraft’s flight manual (if one was issued) or set out in equivalent documents and placards (if a flight manual wasn’t issued). In essence: Vne is clearly ‘spelt out’ in the limitations section of the AFM/POH for most ‘modern’ aircraft and on some placard for ‘older’ aircraft.

Here's what reg 138 said when it was in force:
138 Pilot to comply with requirements etc of aircraft’s flight manual etc

(1) If a flight manual has been issued for an Australian aircraft, the pilot in command of the aircraft must comply with a requirement, instruction, procedure or limitation concerning the operation of the aircraft that is set out in the manual.

Penalty: 50 penalty units.

(2) If a flight manual has not been issued for an Australian aircraft and, under the relevant airworthiness standards for the aircraft, the information and instructions that would otherwise be contained in an aircraft’s flight manual are to be displayed either wholly on a placard, or partly on a placard and partly in another document, the pilot in command of the aircraft must comply with a requirement, instruction, procedure or limitation concerning the operation of the aircraft that is set out:

(a) on the placard; or

(b) on the placard or in the other document.

Penalty: 50 penalty units.

(3) An offence against subregulation (1) or (2) is an offence of strict liability.

Note: For strict liability, see section 6.1 of the Criminal Code.
That’s been replaced by Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 reg 91.095:
91.095 Compliance with flight manual etc.

(1) This regulation applies in relation to the operation of an aircraft during the following period:

(a) from the earlier of:

(i) the time the aircraft’s doors are closed before take‑off; and

(ii) the time the flight begins;

(b) to the later of:

(i) the time the aircraft’s doors are opened after landing; and

(ii) the time the flight ends.

(2) The pilot in command of the aircraft contravenes this subregulation if the pilot in command does not comply with either or both of the following:

(a) the aircraft flight manual instructions for the aircraft;

(b) any conditions specified in the aircraft’s certificate of airworthiness or special flight permit.

(3) A person commits an offence of strict liability if the person contravenes subregulation (2).

Penalty: 50 penalty units.
Interesting point you make about the airworthiness certificate. One would have thought that exceeding Vne would at least entail a special inspection.

As to any difficulty of calculations of TAS, good luck doing any sensible flight planning on the basis of IAS! Every flight plan I’ve ever completed and filed – either on paper or electronically – has fields that include “TAS” and “WIND” from which a “HDG” and “GS” are calculated, so as to achieve the desired “TRK” and derive “ETI” and “EST” for each leg and waypoint. No “IAS” field to be found!

The inputs on the ‘wind’ side of a prayer wheel are TAS and WIND direction and speed.

The ‘steam driven’ ASI in the bugsmashers I fly have an adjustable scale to input pressure altitude and OAT so that the ASI pointer points to …. TAS. The Cessna 172 in which I did my ‘navs’ 30 plus years ago had an OAT gauge on the end of one of those ‘vent tubes’ at the top corners of the wind shield.

Of course the TAS for planning usually comes out of table in a POH and the winds are just a forecast and the graduations on the ASI adjustable scale are hundreds of feet and many degrees ‘fat’, but as I say: How else are you going to plan? And back when we had to report a revised estimate at a waypoint that was more than 2 minutes different from the one in the plan we’d filed, only GS and TRK mattered. For me, IAS has only ever been about not breaking the wings off, not stalling and not extending/retracting things at too high a speed. (I remember a couple of occasions when unexpectedly poor climb performance (IAS and VSI) was symptomatic of partially-retracted undercarriage – CB ‘popped’ – but very rare.)

Last edited by Clinton McKenzie; 25th Apr 2022 at 23:16.
Clinton McKenzie is offline