Good point about shedding some light with the question/answers involved.
It was my CPL Law exam and here is some more info
The question was about a blind or def guy with his dog on the plane. Following are the two answers you had to choose from as usual the other two were pretty stupid and I don't even recall what they were.
"The dog should be restrained in the passenger cabin". or "The dog should be placed in a container in the cargo area".
When looking over the options I read over CAR 256A (2) Which states:
Subregulation (1) does not apply to the dog accompanying a visually impaired or hearing impaired person as a guide or an assistant if the dog is:
(a) carried in the passenger cabin of the aircraft; and
(b) placed on a moisture-absorbent mat as near to the person as practicable; and
(c) restrained in a way that will prevent the dog from moving from the mat.
Subregulation (1) states:
Subject to subregulation (8), the operator of an aircraft may permit a life animal to be in the aircraft only if:
(a) the animal is in a conatiner and is carried in accordance with this regulation; or
(b)the animal is carried with the written permission of CASA and in accordance with any conditions specified in the permissions.
Subregulation (5) A container in which an animal is kept must not be in the passenger cabin of an aircraft.
So I wrote an email to them and finished with the following:
"In all fairness it is unlikely that you would be able to specify all of those details down to every last detail however since point (b) and point (c) are both focused on the "moisture-absorbent mat" and there was no mention of the mat in any of the answers I felt that subregulation (2) was in no way fulfilled.
Once again to be clear the requirements of subregulation (2) were not met, when the subregulation specifically says that subregulation (1) does not apply "if the dog is:" and then lists 3 requirements point (a) (b) and (c)....Yes, point (a) was covered, point (b) was not covered at all and point (c) was half covered however with no mention of the mat.
I'm sure if I were flying a blind PAX and his dog from Ayers Rock to Darwin and upon arrival at Darwin a CASA representative were to find my blind PAX and his dog in the back of my aircraft with urine and faeces all over the cabin floor (according to Dr Tami M Hawes it is natural for a dog to defecate when stressed) with no moisture absorbent mat I would be penalise for such an incident. Given that most humans are stressed by travel in light aircraft it is highly likely that a dog would be to, which is why one would assume subregulation (2) is so specific with regard to the moisture-absorbent mat (for passenger and cabin crew health and safety).
It is obvious that this question and the answers were placed there to try and trip up the candidate that is unaware of the other subregulations of regulation 256A. However it seems that I have been penalised for following the laws as specified in the Civil Aviation Regulations. Having made the same decision that CASA would expect me to make in a real world situation. I don't see how you can expect a pilot to give one answer in an exam and then interpret the law differently when flying.
As you would be well aware we are not lawyers and this email is probably not the strongest argument that can be put forward. Had I wanted to become a lawyer and spend the rest of my life twisting, interpreting and reading laws in a way that suited me or my client I would have pursued a law degree.
I have followed the laws as given and in a way that would avoid any fines or potential conflicts in a real world situation (which I would assume is the purpose to these exams, to see that a pilot can understand how to operate once he/she has attained a Commercial Pilots Licence) and I would expect that to be recognised.
This was a calculated response and when I saw that I had been penalised for it I was shocked when I'm sure I was one of the few people that spent the time to fully understand and interpret the question."
Thanks for your advice so far. I'm sure they just hope that one would give up before getting a lawyer and you have to start looking at costs etc. All too often it's the ones that are willing to spend the time, effort and money complaining that win!