One wonders about the regulations sometimes and I wonder if one can be forgiven for thinking that they are designed to produce uncertainty? If that is the case, then an awful lot of responsibility falls on the head of individual CASA staff to "interpret" what they mean.
By way of example, an aquaintance attended NATFLY recently and received the usual ramp check by CASA which appears common at all aviation events - which is the reason I never attend them by air.
This resulted in a discussion with the CASA Flight Operations Inspector (FOI) when my acquaintance politely asked the simple question: "Why will not CASA issue a simple plain English list of the minimum regulatory requirements for the legal execution of a single piston engine aircraft VFR flight?
The FOI's response was that "all aircraft are different" and that therefore it was "too complicated" to construct such a list.
One has to wonder about this. Pprune and other websites are chock full of threads asking this very question in a variety of ways.
For example, a pilot is required by regulation to avail himself of the current weather forecast for his destination and perhaps alternates. Compliance with this will vary between carrying up to half a dozen pages of weather forecasts and NOTAMS, downloading such data via NAIPS onto an electronic device to a few cryptic notes on the back of a map if the pilot obtained his forecast by radio or telephoone as he is legally allowed. Yet where is there a simple statement of what is always acceptable to CASA?
Similarly we are required to have performed a "weight and balance" computation before flight using the aircrafts prescribed loading system computation method. There are a good dozen computer applications that will perform this calculation for you and record the result, but as CASA correctly points out, none of these applications are certified by the aircrafts manufacturer and are therefore technically illegal to use as a record of having performed the calculation.
So what if I simply perform the calculation electronically and write down the results? Is that legal? What if I do it all manually if I make an arithmetic mistake? Is that safer?
What evidence does CASA want to see? A written computation for every flight? If so, I am in error when I tour because I do the numbers to ensure that we are well within the weight and balance envelope with full fuel and all our possessions and gear and provided we don't add anything, I don't do it again for the remainder of the trip (since there is no zero fuel weights, etc. involved) is that strictly legal? Should I just xerox copies of it and change the date and destination each leg? Do I need to do the calculation again after a quick fuel and loo stop in Echuca on our way to our final destination? Again, what is incontrovertibly acceptable to all CASA FOIs?
Then allegedly there is a requirement for fuel log. My calculation is usually the back of a NAIPS fflight plan form. Is that enough? Can I do that electronically?
Then there is the question of certified gear. I have yet to see a certified Cessna tie down net on any aircraft I've hired. How should I then comply with the sensible requirement to restrain baggage? My solution has been to either use rope or a couple of Tie down ratchet systems from Bunnings, but is this legal? What is worse? Unrestrained baggage or fitting an aircraft with an unapproved part - to whit, a pice of rope?
The list of such anomalies and uncertainties appears to me and others as endless and I don't believe I see any evidence that the situation is going to change any time soon.
What concerns me is that pilots are spending too much time and effort on legal niceties instead of what really matters - robust safety practices, and that must be of concern to all of us. Being legal isn't the same as being safe.
Last edited by Sunfish; 7th Apr 2013 at 22:40.