------the capability is now there to carry an alternate; you just choose to accept that it's still OK to land below the minima on multiple occasions ----
Bloggs,
And how many of them were below the approach minima, not just the alternate minima?? Still, I guess we know where Australian aviation would be if all the rule were made by people who think the way you do ---- always looking for absolutes were no absolutes exist. As in demanding something called "absolute safety".
Do you have any idea of how closely QF works with BoM to minimise the occurrence of dud forecasts.
---- that the thread title should be changed to "Should CASA change the alternate requirements",
Shark Patrol,
If you want to change the thread title, make it:
"Should Australia/CASA once again depart from ICAO SARPs,and the practices of major aviation nations and once again introduce unique Australian regulations, with their attendant risk management unjustified costs and complexities",
because that is what you are asking for.
Re. CAR 234, and strict liability, this is one of many regulations where it (in a legal theory sense -- and the ALRC tome on the subject) cannot be strict liability, because a judgment call is required of the pilot and operator.
This, and many other equally appalling examples of how "strict liability" has been incorrectly applied to many aviation regulations, abound, and are generally carried through to the "reformed" regulations.
CAR 234 calls for a subjective judgement, there is no objective standard in the regulation, against which (in theory) a finding of guilt without a mental element being considered, can be made.
Tootle pip!!