From CAR 234
(3) 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.
Seems abundantly clear to me. We have the regulation that we will be charged under in accordance with strict liability. What part of "possibility of a forced diversion" don't some people get? Whilst we're at it "delay pending a landing clearance" - anyone not been to Per or Bne lately?
