PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - Legal experts: CAO 20.18.10
View Single Post
Old 1st Oct 2014, 05:56
  #65 (permalink)  
Virtually There
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by yr right
I will say this for the last time. Having been someone that has written used mels etc on muti Engine turbine engine in remote areas of Australia I think I may have a little bit of knowlege on this subject also having released more aircraft than I care to admit.
Hi yr right, the MEL's you used at work and continually refer to in this thread were issued under 20.18.10.4 in accordance with 37 (2).

Surely as an experienced LAME you know where MELs come from.

Originally Posted by yr right
20.18 is min equip required for each cat. It is not any way saying that if you are in a higher cat you can drop down and fly.
No, it is the minimum requirement for each operation - not category.

I think this is where you are getting confused. I don't blame you, because this is exactly where I was originally confused - hence asking what the definition of "charter aircraft" was in 20.18

"Charter aircraft" as defined under CAR Vol 2 (6) (b) is "an aircraft employed in charter operations".

Originally Posted by yr right
If you won't to do it go ahead. You get your penalty points. It won't worry me. As I said you are not allowed to go against what the LBS states. It's maintence and not flying ops. Period
20.18 clearly refers to "flying ops", as defined by the CARs.

Part 1 of the MR clearly refers to "Operational Category" - does it not?

The decision to fly or not is ultimately left to the PIC - is it not?

Mate, I've tried to be patient and give you the benefit of the doubt as you were clearly trying to help. But if you can't provide anything to support what you have been saying all this time, then do you honestly expect me to believe anything you write?

You talk of "penalty points", but you can't even point to the regs. I mean, c'mon - what "penalty points" are you even talking about?

I don't want to be rude, but why do you keep ignoring all our requests to point to the regulations you have based your entire argument on?

Is it because they don't exist and everything you have been saying is simply based on your own opinion? Because opinions don't stand up in court - sorry.
Virtually There is offline