Required Charts

[2Plus]

Does anyone know where in the CAR/CAO/AIP it says what charts are to be carried onboard? ie. is there anywhere that specifically mentions a requirement for the pilot of an aircraft flying IFR to be carrying airways charts, terminal charts, or IFR procedures?

[maggotdriver]

233 Responsibility of pilot in command before flight


(h) the latest editions of the aeronautical maps, charts and other aeronautical information and instructions, published in AIP or by a person approved in writing, that are applicable:

(i) to the route to be flown; and

(ii) to any alternative route that may be flown on that flight;

are carried in the aircraft and are readily accessible to the flight crew.

[LeadSled]

Folks,
This actually leads to some "interesting" arguments with FOIs.

It is clear what charts you need for IFR, and that covers an IFR planned aircraft doing a leg in VMC.

But ---- if you are a VFR flight and happen to have all the IFR charts ---- you need the whole suite of VFR charts --- as per a list in the AIP.

Quite simply, some FOIs will not accept the intent of 233 ---- "that are applicable" ---- and insist in a ramp check that you have to have all the VFR charts ---- if you are in the middle of nowhere, just WAC and ERSA are not good enough.

Life wasn't meant to be easy.!!

Tootle pip!!

[Buttscratcher]

It's all a bit nutty really...... I mean, do QANTAS LH flight decks actually have all 'Aeronautical maps' pertaining to the route? That's a ****load of WAC maps which all have to be 'current' also.....apparently
That's the reg. though, go figure

[Shagpile]

Has a court officially ruled on this before? Until then there is no line in the sand and it's opinion vs opinion. I suspect the courts would find it difficult to prosecute somebody over this as it's so open ended (although I'm not a lawyer!).

As a thought experiment it would be interesting to see if a local area flight was prosecuted and you had nothing, whether you could argue in court that there were no applicable maps and charts and/or that you weren't flying on a route.

At the flying school I'm at (operating under AOC), the min to carry for local training area flights is an A5 photocopy of a topo map and the local approach plates for 3 airfields. No ersa, no AIP, no other maps.

When operating outside training area, need to take a few maps and ersa (plus relevant approach plates).

[Sunfish]

I work on the basis that I require ALL applicable charts and data for everywhere within the range of the aircraft with its current fuel load in the current weather conditions. That covers all possible scenarios because one is then in a position to say to an FOI "there is no point in me carrying chart XYZ because I can't possibly get there, therefore it can"t be applicable".

To put it another way, if all its good for today is wiping my arse, it ain't applicable.*


ap·pli·ca·ble (pl-k-bl, -plk-)
adj.
That can be applied; relevant or appropriate


ap•plied (əˈplaɪd)

adj.
1. having a practical purpose or use; derived from or involved with actual phenomena: applied mathematics.
2. having a primarily utilitarian function:



* And I carry everything on the iPad with Ozrunways anyway.

[Shagpile]

In a cruel twist of fate, I'm not allowed to use iPads at work :(

[Buttscratcher]

iPads still are not an answer for this dilemma tho, as paper copies must still be carried

The way I see it, everyone is screwed by the 'latest aeronautical maps' reference.
As we know, charts are a fair call and carried easily in the Jepp suppliments .......maps are maps tho, and they seem to be equally as important according to the CAR, but I don't carry maps, and don't know anyone else that does either.

Another dumbass ill-thought-out draconian requirement from our Gods of Aviation

[Shagpile]

iPads still are not an answer for this dilemma tho, as paper copies must still be carried

Wrong wrong wrong. Talk to CASA and read CAR233. If you fly under an AOC, CAO 82.0 Appendix9 + CAAP233. There's a whole another thread somewhere about this.

Summary: Yes you can use iPads, some people need a backup iPad (or paper) and you need to read the legislation.

[Buttscratcher]

Fair enough, but our OM specifically identifies non-useage of PEDs in flight.
Bummer.
Notwithstanding, it's my belief that with OPT (IPad) approval, we'd still have to have paper Jepps for the route as a back-up

Nonetheless I have my nose outta joint reference 'Maps'
Charts, sure
Maps? Jesusbloodychrist! If they mean WACs, then I'm gonna need the forward cargo bay to load them in, and since they all have to be up to date, then ill need to sell my ass-on-over-nights to pay for them
.... But that's how the Oz regs read

My point would be this ..... If you get ramped whilst flying a 402 around Alice, and don't have a Sydney VTC or all WACs for that route, then I wouldn't be too worried... tho I know what pricks they can be, and if they all disappeared tomorrow I doubt anyone would notice
What pisses me of mostly is the outdated regs - that, and so many others need to be re-addressed

In short, carry the appropriate jepp suite, and if the FOIs have a problem with that, tell 'em Buttscratcher will come around and rape their pets.

[peuce]

The question that comes to my mind....

Has there ever been an accident, or serious incident, where the lack of appropriate charts was a casual factor?

Even if you get lost, there's lots of ways to get help.Hell, even with charts you can get lost.

Even if you're IFR and have to divert to an unplanned airport, there's ways to get help and approach information.

Does the "depth" of the requirement fix a problem?

[Clearedtoreenter]

Quote:
iPads still are not an answer for this dilemma tho, as paper copies must still be carried
Wrong wrong wrong. Talk to CASA and read CAR233. If you fly under an AOC, CAO 82.0 Appendix9 + CAAP233. There's a whole another thread somewhere about this.

Summary: Yes you can use iPads, some people need a backup iPad (or paper) and you need to read the legislation.
*


I went to some CASA inspired educational love in recently. I think (don't quote me) a view was expressed, for at least most private and airwork ops that as long as the maps come from an approved source, you are fine with just an iPad because all you need is access to charts from an approved supplier. Ozrunways is the only approved supplier other than good old Airservices and so you're fine with just an iPad and Ozrunways. However, if your iPad falls over or your battery goes flat, you no longer have charts available and are in deep doo doo. A failed iPad was likened to losing maps out of the window:confused: All of which seems remarkably sensible(?)

[LeadSled]

Butts,
You are obviously talking IFR ---- as I mentioned earlier, that is straightforward. It is the poor bloody VFR operator who gets screwed on a ramp check.
After all, the very latest topo. is imperative, just think how continental drift can cause navigational disaster.
Re. iPads, the way I read the current rules, you need two, or equivalent, one as the backup. I actually carry my no longer the latest edition topos, but the "dual iPad" is for "compliance".
The savings in update costs, using Ozrunways, soon pays for the iPad by 2.
Tootle pip!!

PS: How to verify how long somebody has been flying: Ask them the variation where they first learned, add or subtract from the current variation, divide by the mean annual change, and the answer voila.

[Captain Garmin]

Ozrunways is the only approved supplier other than good old Airservices


Guys I got an email from Avplan today saying that AvPlan EFB is now also an approved data source for all maps, ERSA, DAPS and AIP like AirServices under CAR 233 1(h).

They also announced a subscription license change where you now get up to 3 iPad/Iphone devices licensed for the same annual charge. That'll do me for backup too :ok:

[Creampuff]

And don't forget Jeppesen is approved as well, and has been for decades...

[LeadSled]

Creamie,
Actually only for about three decades.

Qantas had been using Jepps for years, having changed from Airad, when some inspired DoT/ATG or CAA bright spark decided that only charts produced by whatever Airservices was called at the time was "legal" for an Australian operator.
So, QF had been operating "illegally" since the inception of international services.
The same "auditor" also queried the world wide topos we carried -- US produced ONC series, on the basis they were not adequate for pilots to determine LSA in flight --- and the Airad or Jepp. LSAs (by whatever name) were not "approved".

Such fond memories of such wonderful contributions to "air safety". To this day, we have some FOIs who will not accept a full Jepp. service meets the requirements of CAR 233. Strange, but true.

Tootle pip!!

[FerrypilotDK]

....would cause the blood to gather in the head and result in brain damage. Seemingly only among the inspectors...... Glad I don't have to deal with your local clowns.

I do remember a Norwegian though, that told me Jepp and a copy of a chart on a napkin were equally "non-approved," he contended that the AIP was the only approved chart source.

Maybe he had spent a lot of time in Oz?

[LeadSled]

FerrypilotDK,
Certainly sound like it.
Too many years ago, the DCA in Pakistan decided on a regulatory revamp, and decided on using the "Australian model". I was working as a contract pilot for PIA at the time, I predicted the results ---- the "Australian style" regulations meshed all too well with the ex-RAJ bureaucratic mentality.
Before too much damage was done, the whole thing was dropped, but it was fun while it lasted. One thing that I remember like it was yesterday, pilots who had been flying to ports for years suddenly had to be route qualified, a "year zero" approach was taken as the starting point. Still, it kept me busy for a while --- I was this bloke who was already qualified from "another airline".

Tootle pip!!