Originally Posted by
Duck Pilot
AOC holders aren’t responsible for a lot of things the PIC does in a Part 135 operation. ….
I’d be interested in examples of things that a PIC can do that are not the responsibility of the AOC holder.
Let’s take an example:
135.040 Compliance with flight manual
(1) The operator of an aeroplane for a flight contravenes this subregulation if, during the flight, the aeroplane is operated in a way that does not meet a requirement or limitation that:
(a) is set out in the aircraft flight manual instructions for the aeroplane; and
(b) relates to the operation of the aeroplane.
Note: The pilot in command of the aeroplane must also ensure the aeroplane is operated in accordance with the aircraft flight manual instructions: see regulation 91.095.
(2) A person commits an offence of strict liability if the person contravenes subregulation (1).
Penalty: 50 penalty units.
Note that it’s the operator (not the PIC) that commits the (strict liability) offence imposed by CASR 135.040(2). That’s why they added the ‘Note’. (The word “person” is used in CASR 135.040(2) because some operators are corporate entities and some are humans and, in Commonwealth legislation, the word “person” covers both.)
Most flight manuals I’ve seen include weight and balance limitations. Therefore, if the PIC of an aeroplane of a Part 135 operator operates it outside e.g. the weight or balance limitations in the flight manual, the
operator and not the PIC commits an offence under CASR 135.040(2). As it’s a strict liability offence, it doesn’t matter whether the operator knows the PIC is operating the aeroplane outside the limitations.
Or am I missing something?