Creampuff,
In the "the aircraft is hard to land" statement:
1) is it a defect, perhaps there is an underlying problem with the aircraft ( remember this was given as an example of what a retarded pilot could / would write ),
2) has it been written up as a defect, well it is an open item on the MR, so as per the example given above, unless "the aircraft is hard to land" is listed on the MEL as a category A, B or C deferable item, the aircraft shall not be flown.
10.1 In the case of a charter or regular public transport aircraft, all instruments and equipment fitted to the aircraft must be serviceable before take-off, unless:
(a) flight with unserviceable instruments or equipment has been approved by CASA, subject to such conditions as CASA specifies; or (Does not apply)
(b) the unserviceability is a permissible unserviceability set out in the minimum equipment list for the aircraft and any applicable conditions under subregulation 37 (2) of the Regulations have been complied with; or (Does not apply)
(c) CASA has approved the flight with the unserviceable instrument or equipment and any applicable conditions that CASA has specified in writing have been complied with; or (Does not apply)
(d) the unserviceable instrument or equipment is a passenger convenience item only and does not affect the airworthiness of the aircraft. (Does not apply)
Enter the subjective determination FOI or AWI ( which I believe you are claiming can not happen ), "Well if its different to the other C172s, there must be a reason, ( cue the selection of the ass covering switch to the detent position ) it is my opinion that this aircraft is an imminent safety risk,,,,,,,,,,, I don't know why,,,,,,,, it just is".
In your ‘fairer example’, as you point out, the charter aircraft does not fly with a U/S shadin fuel computer unless it’s subject to one of the exceptions. That’s the rule. It’s been the rule for around 3 decades.
No it hasn't
Refer post 155
But CAsA brought this on themselves, in days of old:
* a class B maintained aircraft was said the be "airworthy" when:
- the aircraft had a valid maintenance release, and,
- the basic operational requirements for flight (IFR / VFR) were met and serviceable ( as per CAO 20.18 ), and,
- the mandatory instruments as detailed within the flight manual were servicable, and,
- the PIC was satisfied with the state of all of the above and the calculated sphincter factor based on any other issues ( higher than normal oil consumption etc etc ).
By my recollection this "interpretation" changed in the early 2000's.
(And it’s ironic you use a fuel computer as an example. What do you reckon is the single biggest contributor to commercial GA hull loss in Australia?)
This issue is not the absences of a Shadin, it is the Pilots not doing their jobs properly: flight planning, correctly leaning in the climb and cruise, monitoring the inflight EGT / CHT and checking actual FOB at departure point, checking mid flight fuel burns etc etc.
Having a Shadin onboard might have helped them, so would have the correct amount of fuel or correct fuel management technique.
The aircraft had been certified worthy of a VH- registration out of the factory without said Shadin.
Incidently, you didn't answer my question
:
Really, what if a pilot hits a kangaroo on a remote strip and the roo puts a ding in the leading edge of the wing, the pilots find him/herself standing in the middle of a paddock in the middle of the Barkly Tableland, no one within 50 miles ( least of all an engineer ) who can decide if the aircraft is airworthy or not ?.