Gotta one good thing to come from this debate is the amount of re-reading of Regs i have been doing.
Unhinged, with regards to CAAPs being legislation.
From CAR 234
For the purposes of these Regulations, in determining whether fuel and
oil carried on an aircraft in respect of a particular flight was sufficient
within the meaning of subregulations (1) and (2), a court must, in
addition to any other matters, take into account the following matters:
(a) the distance to be travelled by the aircraft on the flight to reach
the proposed destination;
(b) the meteorological conditions in which the aircraft is, or may be
required, to fly;
(c) the possibility of:
(i) a forced diversion to an alternative aerodrome; and
(ii) a delay pending landing clearance; and
(iii) air traffic control re-routing the flight after commencement
of the flight; and
(iv) a loss of pressurisation in the aircraft; and
(v) where the aircraft is a multi-engined aircraft—an engine
failure;
(d) any guidelines issued from time to time by CASA for the
purposes of this regulation.
I would take that to mean that while CAAPs may not be legislation, conducting OPS is a way other than suggested in the CAAP will count against you in a court room situation. Thoughts???