That wasn’t my second question Checkboard (although you are, of course, under no obligation to answer my questions).
“More comprehensive” doesn’t mean correct. “Seem to address” doesn’t mean categorically answer.
I’d still be interested, if you get the time, to set out your thoughts on where Mr Davies’ analysis goes astray.
CAR 234(3) specifically required that contingencies such as a loss of pressurisation or engine failure be considered when determining the amount of fuel required for a flight. CAR 220 also required the operator to provide specific instructions for situations such as an engine failure. CAAP 234-1 provided additional guidance for these abnormal situations.
CAR 234
(3) does not impose an obligation on a pilot.
In any event, if the PIC breached 234
(1), he should be prosecuted for the breach. It automatically follows that the operator should be prosecuted under 234
(2).
234 Fuel requirements
(1) The pilot in command of an aircraft must not commence a flight within Australian territory, or to or from Australian territory, if he or she has not taken reasonable steps to ensure that the aircraft carries sufficient fuel and oil to enable the proposed flight to be undertaken in safety.
Penalty: 50 penalty units.
(2) An operator of an aircraft must take reasonable steps to ensure that an aircraft does not commence a flight as part of the operator’s operations if the aircraft is not carrying sufficient fuel and oil to enable the proposed flight to be undertaken in safety.
Penalty: 50 penalty units.
(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.
(4) An offence against subregulation (1) or (2) is an offence of strict liability.
Note: For strict liability, see section 6.1 of the Criminal Code.
Note that (1) and (2) require “reasonable steps”, not an “absolute guarantee”. Note also the test is at a point in time: The commencement of the flight.
We all know why the PIC wasn’t prosecuted under 234(1).