Air Law Questions

[Greg2041]

Just a couple of quick questions that have puzzled me!


1/ If a person falls unwell and within 21 days he/she is able to return to full duties, I am assuming that his/her medical certificate is not suspended.

But where the holder of a Medical Certificate suffers an injury that affects her / his ability to act as a crew member the certificate is automatically suspended.

Q: Why does a period of 21 days only apply to illness and not injury?


2/ Why is it illegal for an aircraft commander without an RT licence to allow another person carried on that flight who holds an Aeronautical RT Operator's Licence to operate the aircraft radio communication equipment?

I can’t work that one out!

Thank you in advance.

Greg

[Whopity]

If you have an injury sufficiently serious to prevent you flying for 21 days then its highly probably that you will need a medical assessment of some sort. The 21 days allows for the usual colds flu etc where you probably don't seek medical attention.
Why is it illegal for an aircraft commander without an RT licence to allow another person carried on that flight who holds an Aeronautical RT Operator's Licence to operate the aircraft radio communication equipment?It isn't!

The law states that in order to operate an aircraft radio station you must either hold a FRTOL or operate under the supervision of the holder of such a licence. This is written in the aircraft radio licence.

[Greg2041]

Ah so the wording is sufficiently serious injury and not just injury?

No. 2 has been taken from the Confuser.

In full it says:

"If flying solo without an RT operator's licence, then the radio communication equipment may not be used.

It is also illegal for an aircraft commander without an RT licence to allow another person carried on that flight who holds an Aeronautical RT Operator's Licence to operate the aircraft radio communication equipment."

Yours thoughts...............

[Gertrude the Wombat]

Also if you suffer some symptoms which your doctor sends you off to hospital to be investigated, and they keep you in overnight, because that's the quickest way to get to see a consultant in the NHS, and in the morning ward round the consultant says your symptoms are nothing to worry about, there's nothing wrong with you, go away and stop wasting my time, then:

(1) if the consultant tells you to piss off 11 hours and 59 minutes after you were admitted then that's that, you can go straight from the hospital to the airfield and fly

(2) if the consultant tells you to piss off 12 hours and 1 minute after you were admitted then that's an automatic medical suspension and quite likely an expensive written report from the consultant before you can fly again.

Still, there have to be rules, and you have to draw the line somewhere.

[Assuming that I've correctly remembered that the trigger point is 12 hours.]

[BackPacker]

It is also illegal for an aircraft commander without an RT licence to allow another person carried on that flight who holds an Aeronautical RT Operator's Licence to operate the aircraft radio communication equipment.

Just guessing. First, we're most likely talking single-crew aircraft here, not like old 747s where there was MCC and strict separation of duties between pilots and flight engineers.

My reasoning would be that since we're talking single crew operations here, the PIC has to be able to perform all tasks himself, before he can supervise others to perform a task under his command/direction. Without an FRTOL the PIC cannot legally supervise somebody executing the privileges of an FRTOL.

Other than that, I really don't know.

[Whopity]

Yours thoughts...............There is nothing in the ANO or the Radio Licence to support this and there never has been, so its TRIPE!Without an FRTOL the PIC cannot legally supervise somebody executing the privileges of an FRTOL.He doesn't need to supervise a person with a Licence! The FRTOL is a flight crew licence. A pilot does not need a radio licence to fly in the UK! A JAA licence can also be issued without RTF privileges. The passenger with the radio licence could even supervise the pilot whilst he operates the radio!

[mad_jock]

Its illegal because the rules state that if you are PIC with out a RFTOL and are not flying on someones else license eg. a student pilot. The radio has to be made inoperative and that doesn't mean just pull the CB. And documented it has been made so in the tech log. So if you did have someone qualified with you they couldn't use it because it wouldn't work

If you are flying solo as PIC as a PPL without a RFTOL on the instructors ticket you would have obey all the student pilot restrictions which means no pax.

I can't find a reference for the radio has to be made US, it has hopefully been changed as it was a bloody stupid idea. But article 26 of the ANO covers what you can and can't do.

[Whopity]

Its illegal because the rules state that if you are PIC with out a RFTOL and are not flying on someones else license eg. a student pilot. Where do you find such rubish? There is nothing in the ANO that says that.Operation of radio in aircraft
55 (1) A radio station in an aircraft shall not be operated, whether or not the aircraft is in flight, except in accordance with the conditions of the licence issued in respect of that station under the law of the country in which the aircraft is registered or the State of the operator and by a person duly licensed or otherwise permitted to operate the radio station under that law. Next time you pick up the aircraft docs read the radio licence.User of the Station
The licensee shall not permit or suffer any person to use the station unless the person:
(a) poseses a valid Flight Radio Telephony Operator's Licence issed by the Civil Aviation Authority; or
(b) is under the supervision of a person posessing the above
No mention of pilots, just persons and radio licences!

[mad_jock]

It certainly used to be the case hence my term "it was a bloody stupid idea"

26 (1) Subject to the provisions of this article, a person shall not act as a member of the flight
crew of an aircraft registered in the United Kingdom unless he is the holder of an
appropriate licence granted or rendered valid under this Order.
(2) A person may within the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands, and the Isle of Man
without being the holder of such a licence:
(a) act as a flight radiotelephony operator if:
(i) he does so as the pilot of a glider on a private flight and he does not
communicate by radiotelephony with any air traffic control unit; or
(ii) he does so as a person being trained in an aircraft registered in the United
Kingdom to perform duties as a member of the flight crew of an aircraft and:
(aa) he is authorised to operate the radiotelephony station by the holder of
the licence granted in respect of that station under any enactment;
(bb) messages are transmitted only for the purposes of instruction, or of
the safety or navigation of the aircraft;
(cc) messages are transmitted only on a frequency exceeding 60 MHz
assigned by the CAA for the purposes of this sub-paragraph;
(dd) the operation of the transmitter requires the use only of external
switches; and
(ee) the stability of the frequency radiated is maintained automatically


Its section ii which stuffs you up. So you are either authorised by an instructor which means no pax or the instructor is sitting next to you.

In the real world I really don't think any one gives a toss the number of ppl's applications which don't have RTFOL attached must pretty much nil

[Greg2041]

Good. Well I am glad that we are all clear on that one then.

Can't wait to do the exam!

Thanks for all your input.

Greg

[Whopity]

It certainly used to be the case hence my term "it was a bloody stupid idea"
No it never was the case! It was a Myth brought about by people only reading Art 26 or 21, 20 as it used to be and making incorrect assummptions. This article is principally about "exceptions". Article 55 (41 and 39 as was) sets the requirements for operation of an aircraft radio station. The Schedule to the Aircraft radio licence contains the rest. If you read all 3 in conjunction you will see that nothing has changed since before the days of the CAA in 1974. I can recall hearing this myth years ago and going through the legislation to disprove it.

Lets say it was a bloody stupid assumption that never had any legal foundation.

[mad_jock]

You better tell some very high up examiners at the CAA then and presumably the ones that writes the PPL exams.

Because thats who I got it from and article 26 is the one that they quote.


The answer to what the question is looking for is the one I gave you. If you did go as far as to email the CAA about it they would proberly refuse to answer you and point you at the ANO. But in this day and age that sort of question should be stripped from the databases the likely hood of any new PPL getting teamed up with a none RFTOL coffin dodger is remote. But then again who would have thought an Airbus 320 having a double engine failure then successfully ditch with zero killed.

[Whopity]

Mad Jock
Its section ii which stuffs you up. So you are either authorised by an instructor which means no pax or the instructor is sitting next to you.
On the contrary, it simply states that you may operate the radio under those conditions if you are a student pilot without the need to hold a licence.

If you are a qualified pilot and don't hold a FRTOL you may not operate the radio unless you do so under the supervision of a licence holder. This is not mentioned in Art 26 because it is not an exception. It is a condition of the operation of an aircraft station clearly stated in the Schedule to the licence.

There are no current CAA questions stating this, however if you can find one I'll happily tell any examiner that they are wrong.

[mad_jock]

Can I suggest you get the CAA to put it in print what the policy is.

Its a pretty entrenched miss interpretation as you can see by the fact that there are text books out there with incorrect questions and answers not to mention the word of mouth instructor instruction ie FIC that goes on.

[TheSpasticFlyer]

Since I was 15 I had an VHF R/T ticket. In those FREE AND EASY days we could fly non radio.
My boss Russel Whyham used to send me with old bomber pilots and others who had never used the radio as they had an operator on board their transport or bomber when they flew.
My R/T ticket still is not restricted to my licence though the CAA sent me an R/T licence that was.
And guess what I am still a radio operator! :ok: