Icarus2001
And there you were thinking that the AIP contained rules!
You'd be amazed at how much of AIP is somebody's bright but legally invalid idea.
A direction in the AIP is binding if, and only to the extent that, it is the product of a valid exercise of a power to make the particular direction.
The problem is that you don't know which bits of AIP are valid and which bits are invalid. However, unless you are on notice that a particular bit of AIP is invalid, I suggest it is reasonable (and indeed prudent) for you to presume that all of AIP is valid.
You would have a defence of honest and reasonable mistake of fact if, for example, you did a right hand circuit at an aerodrome because ERSA said it was right hand circuits at that aerodrome, when in fact the 'requirement' in ERSA was someone's 'bright idea' instead of the result of a direction given by a delegate of CASA's power under reg 166.
Conversely, if someone is prosecuted for failing to comply with a 'direction' in AIP, it will be up to the prosecution to show that the 'direction' was a valid exercise of some power to make that particular direction. If, for example, you did a left hand circuit when ERSA said it was right hand circuits at a particular aerodrome, the prosecution would have to prove that a delegate of CASA's power under reg 166 had given a valid direction in relation to that aerodrome.
Reg 92 deals with aerodromes. It confers on CASA the power to issue directions relating to the safety of air navigation, in relation to an aerodrome. If CASA has given a direction under reg 92 to the effect set out in AIP 80.3, and if reg 92 is wide enough to support such a direction, and if that direction remains in force, a failure to comply with that direction would be an offence under reg 92(3).
If an operation is being conducted under the authority of an AOC and the company ops manual prohibits the activity mentioned in AIP 80.3, failure to comply with the ops manual would be a breach or reg 215(9).
That's a lot of "ifs".
Reg 166 deals with operations on and in the vicinity of aerodromes. It's very difficult to construe reg 166 as conferring power other than with respect to circuit directions.
Reg 249 covers pax-carrying emergency practice, and does not confer a direction-making power on CASA.
Beyond that, it's hard to identify the source of the power to give a direction in terms of AIP 80.3.
It seems that the ATSB has come to the view that AIP 80.3 is a 'bright idea' rather than a legally valid direction – a very, very untidy state of affairs. If it's only 'guidance', the AIP should say so in words of one syllable.