Clinton puts his foot in it again:
Jim: I don’t see the connection between Lindy Chamberlain’s wrongful conviction and the comparative, objective safety of lean pulls versus throttle pulls. If your point is that judges aren’t smart enough to understand the complexity of aviation-related issues, and that a meritorious argument will be lost on them, we’ll have to agree to disagree.
Brian – that extract was the subject of a discussion on a different thread that was unfortunately, but I’m guessing necessarily, ‘pulled’ by the moderators.
Before addressing the substantive example you’ve raised, I’d suggest you do a search of the term ‘CASA Approved Flight Manual’ in the current regs, and then work out what will currently satisfy the current regulations in respect of flight manuals for an Australian aircraft. I’d also note that over the years a number of changes have been made to flight manuals, as a consequence of regulatory authorities realising that some of the content simply perpetuated myths. LOP is a case in point.
With that background, I agree that if the current flight manual – as defined in the current regulations - continues to include the recommendation you quoted, I would comply with that recommendation in the operation of that – repeat that - aircraft.
What I wouldn’t do, and don’t do, is extrapolate the underlying assumption to the operation of every piston GA aircraft. That’s because I know that not all fuel/mixture/induction systems fitted to all piston GA aircraft are the same. I’m guessing that’s why there are different practices out there.
I will again suggest - as I suggested on the other thread - to those with open minds, that they find out what the actual fuel/mixture/induction system fitted to the actual aircraft they operate actually does. That way they may be able to do an objective assessment of the comparative risks of lean pull versus throttle pull on that aircraft. A first step would be a review of the publicly available material on websites like Avweb and Beechtalk.
Stink – if you think they are liable, make a claim against them. That’s what I do when I think someone is liable to me. That’s how the world works – it’s not something I made up. We will eventually see what the Federal Court thinks about the claims the subject of this thread, and some of will accept it and move on.
All that is required Clinton is an instruction from CASA, published to the industry, as to what CASA credentialed officials are to require in the matter of simulated engine failures. Argument over the matter demonstrates complete failure as a Bureaucracy (in the best organizational sense of the word).
All you are doing is digging a deeper hole. CASA must have an official position on this and other matters that deny FOI's etc. the ability to "interpret" the rules.
Leaving them "discretion" over pull mixture etc. must
in equity, leave operators with the right to challenge that discretion without fear or favour.
To put it another way, what is acceptable to one FOI must by law be acceptable to every other FOI. Furthermore, every pilot and operator must know exactly what is acceptable and what is not. "Discretion" is not tolerable in a Bureaucracy unless the limits of that discretion are publicly acknowledged and available and agreed by all.