Originally Posted by
Duck Pilot
Everyone to their own opinion 😀😀😀
However I speak from experience having spent 2 years as a Standards Officer with CASA drafting Parts 91 and 135.
Clint,
With regards to the SMEs and written English, I certainly know how to write and interpret legislation!
If you’ve been able to get a legislative drafter to cut and paste provisions you've drafted - i.e. verbatim - into legislation, you’re not a Duck: you’re a Unicorn! (I say that with genuine respect and to be humorous, not dismissive, Duck.)
Slight drift from the central subject of this thread, but relevant to Sunfish’s point about debatable words, you’ll see from the thread about the 182 at YPOK, I asked CASA about the meaning of the operational requirement applicable to VFR operations at or below the higher of 3,000’ AMSL and 1,000’ AGL in G. The words of the requirement are in the Table 2.07(3) of the Part 91 MOS. The words are:
Aircraft must be operated in sight of ground or water
The answer given was:
When operating below 1000ft AGL or 3000ft AMSL (whichever is higher), the aircraft must be operated in sight of ground or water, and the pilot must be able to physically see ground or water. This is illustrated in Table 2.07 (3) of the Part 91 MOS.
If something is in sight or within sight, you can see it. If it is out of sight, you can't see it. To apply this rule you must be able to actually see the ground or water.
Let’s set aside the silliness of saying that something is “illustrated” in a MOS. The substance of the question is what the words in the MOS require, legally.
As to that substance, according to CASA, these words:
Aircraft must be operated in sight of ground or water
mean, in part or whole, that:
The pilot must be able to physically see ground or water
My immediate reaction to that was: “Well then, why not just say that in the rules (minus the split infinitive)?”
The reason that is important is, as can be seen in the thread about the 182 at YPOK, very experienced people are saying bollocks! to CASA’s answer. I'm "able" to physically see ground or water, in the sense that I'm capable of seeing it, but I'm not actually seeing it at the moment because it's not illuminated! (so the argument goes). Maybe CASA meant that the pilot must perceive, with their eyesight, ground or water when the pilot looks outside the cockpit. Not is
able to see, but
does see. So here we are, in 2023, still debating the substance of rules that have been around for many, many decades.
(This dubious statement in CASA’s response didn’t help its cause:
The only time a NVFR flight would be operating lower than 3000ft AMSL or 1000ft AGL would be in accordance with subregulation 91.277(3) of CASR - taking off or landing or within the NVFR circling area of an aerodrome (within 3NM). At any other time, the aircraft must be at or above the NVFR LSALT in accordance with subregulation 91.277(2) - 1000 feet above the highest obstacle within 10NM of the aircraft. This height will always be above 1000ft AGL.
That height might always be above 1,000 AGL, but it won’t always be above 3,000 AMSL. It’s lawful to cruise at 2,500’ AMSL Night VFR (provided you’re above 1,000’ AGL). By my maths, 2,500’ AMSL is below 3,000’ AMSL. If my maths are correct, this assertion is not true:
The only time a NVFR flight would be operating lower than 3000ft AMSL or 1000ft AGL would be in accordance with subregulation 91.277(3) of CASR - taking off or landing or within the NVFR circling area of an aerodrome (within 3NM).