Reposted from the thread on pilot leaving the controls!!
Under Australian Law.......
Whilst we pilots enjoy a vast amount of flexibility, and can normally justify what we do is lawful and beyond attack by CASA or some legal challenger!!!
The defence of doing it this way for years, or my battery is weak, or the cycle count is to high is no defence at all.
I have just fought this one out with CASA [and lost]....and with "Strict Liability Penalties" applicable...[CAR 225[3], I don't ever want to fight this cause in a court.
The following rules apply:
CAR 225 [1]....The PIC must ensure that one [1] pilot is at the controls from rotors start to rotors stop.
However:
CAO 95.7....Exemption from General Requirement for pilot to be at the controls.
CAO 95.7.1....Allows you to exercise 95.7.2, regardless of CAR 225 [1] and CAR 230 [2], but not CAR 225 [2]
CAO 95.7.2…Does not permit the pilot to leave the controls, unless:
1]…The helicopter is equipped with skids.
2]…The collective and cyclic controls can be locked.
3]…If a passenger is onboard, then they can’t reach the controls.
4]…The pilot considers his/her absence is require based on safety of passengers or persons on the ground.
5]…The pilot remains in the vicinity of the helicopter.
Now the bad news:
CAO 95.7.2
1]...This immediately excludes all wheeled helicopters…..great!
2]...This excludes another bunch…AS350 and B206 series, as these aircraft only have frictions, NOT locks [AS350 collective lock accepted, but not the cyclic friction]….the legality here is locks verses frictions.
3]…Passengers onboard…OK
4]…We tend to use this safety clause to cover most vague or fringe legalities…in this case it won’t stand up in court [or so the CASA lawyers say] unless there is real danger to someone.
The action of protecting offloading passengers does not hold water, as you could have shut down. Fouled wires/slinging equipment falls into the same barrel, as does refueling in the bush. [Don’t yell at me over this one, it’s a legal interpretation]…and as I said with Strict Liability applying, its going to end you up in some very hot and expensive water.
5]…The pilot to remain in the vicinity…OK.
Solo Hot Refuelling falls into this same CAO.....CAO 95.7.2 [4]...we normally justify in our own minds that our action is lawful [after all we are putting out roaring fires], however that may well not be lawful.
Assuming that we can "justify" that all the above CAR/CAO's are complied with, then check CAO 20.4.2, regarding Fire Extinguishing Systems....some aircraft don't even carry a hand unit anymore.
Also CAO 20.5.3 that requires the hose to have a "Quick Cutoff" immeadiately before the tank entry point....that does not mean at the pump. So we now have to pump with one hand and hold the quick realease with the other to satisfy the CAO!!
Not trying to be difficult here, just focusing all Aussie Rotorheads to the law as it stands....thats what the lawyer will be focusing on when someone is having a go at you.
The CASA debriefing I had regarding this exercise was that the industry has been doing all sorts of things for years and years, and most of that activity makes perfect sense, however it may not be legal if tested.