Part 91 Issues [Archive]

roundsounds

12th Apr 2018, 12:20

outnabout

13th Apr 2018, 00:13

Back in the dim, dark ages (late 1990s), pilots were not required to stick to hemispherical levels below 3000 feet.

Not sure when or why it was raised to 5000 feet.

All this is doing is returning to what was before....

drpixie

13th Apr 2018, 23:34

All this is doing is returning to what was before....

Except that the regs will be 4 times as long, everything will be written down twice (in regs and again in the MOS), and the whole thing will be a celebration of confusion (they've had plenty of practice with part 61).

kaz3g

14th Apr 2018, 12:29

It will be interesting to see how some of the vintage / amateur built aircraft (eg things like Tigers, Austers and Champs) will comply with the requirement to be fitted with external lights (nav, beacon and strobes).
I also see the requirement to fly at altitudes complying with the hemspherical rule (odds/evens plus 500’) starts at 3000’ AMSL instead of the current 5000’.

Anyone spot any others yet?

There is no requirement to fit strobes to the Auster. It has a working red light, white tail light, Nav lights and landing light. Either a red light OR strobes is the requirement.

Kaz

kaz3g

14th Apr 2018, 12:32

jonkster

15th Apr 2018, 04:21

https://consultation.casa.gov.au/regulatory-program/part-91-of-casr-and-associated-mos-for-general-ope/supporting_documents/Civil%20Aviation%20Legislation%20Amendment%20Part%2091%20Reg ulations%202018%20%20March%2018.PDF

Not sure I get the bits about simulating engine failures.

Section, 91.560 "Simulating engine failure", seems to say you can only simulate an engine failure if the flight is either:
a. a test flight of a provisionally registered aircraft OR
b. under the terms of a special flight permit OR
c. if an experimental aircraft and EF is approved for that type

That seems to rule out instructional EF/PFL or self practice(?)

Then later in: 91.575 "Single-engine aeroplane—VFR flights by day—engine not to be shut down"

it appears to say you can *shut down an engine* if for the purposes of training (and if with an instructor and within range of a suitable landing area).

I could very well be missing something but this seems to me to be saying

you cannot *simulate* an engine failure for training
but
you can however *shut the engine down* for training

Am I misunderstanding the wording or missing something? (wouldn't surprise me but I am curious what I am missing)

Ixixly

15th Apr 2018, 05:18

Jonkster, basically 91.560 is limiting the size of the Aircraft that can be used for Simulating an Engine Failure in Flight:

(1) The pilot in command of an aircraft for a flight contravenes this subregulation if,
during the flight:
(a) an engine failure is simulated; and
(b) the requirement mentioned in subregulation (2) is not met

So this part says if during the flight you do a simulated engine failure you've broken the sub reg but only if you do not meet (2) which is specifying

(2) The requirement is that one of the following must apply to the aircraft:
(a) the aircraft must be type-certificated to carry not more than 9 passengers,
or must have a maximum take-off weight of not more than 8,618 kg;

It's pretty badly worded I think, should state that an Simulated Engine Failure may only be conducted in an Aircraft that meets "X Requirements" but instead they've gone an ass backwards and terribly difficult to understand way of saying "You cannot do this unless you are NOT flying this".

The Aircraft types that would meet Sub Reg 2 Requires and therefore make it illegal to do are anything Certified to carry 9 or more pax or MTOW greater than 8,618kg, BUT then according to (b) you can do it in one of those aircraft types IF there is no Flight Simulator for it in Australia or if you have an approval from CASA then further requirements for others above 19 pax seats.

It then goes on to say in (d) that if you also can do an inflight Simulated Engine Failure if it is a test flight for a provisionally certificated aircraft, if you have a special flight permit to do it or if you have an experimental certificate that allows the aircraft to simulate a failure of an engine.

jonkster

15th Apr 2018, 05:45

ah OK, so... because of clause (a) most ab-initio/licence training would not be subject to the reg (because it would be done in aircraft under 9 pax or 8618kg) and so clause (d) therefore doesn't need to be looked at (it does say only one of a, b, c or d must apply - I missed that bit :().
That makes sense.

appreciate the explanation cheers - I was going cross eyed looking at it!

djpil

15th Apr 2018, 06:14

It will be interesting to see how some of the vintage / amateur built aircraft (eg things like Tigers, Austers and Champs) will comply with the requirement to be fitted with external lights (nav, beacon and strobes).not just vintage/amateur-built - my newish factory built Pitts has no lights.

Either a red light OR strobes is the requirement.not just any red light but a beacon.

kaz3g

15th Apr 2018, 08:20

...

not just any red light but a beacon.

True...a "red beacon light".

I haven't found a definition of navigation lights...I have red port, green starboard and white tail light. Is that it?

Kaz

kaz3g

15th Apr 2018, 08:27

Ahhh. That extraordinary legal reference, Wikipedia, tells me that the rules are those that apply at sea and I've spent more hours at sea than in the air so all good. Add the white light at the stern to the coloured thingamys.

Kaz

LeadSled

16th Apr 2018, 08:53

Folks,
The drafting of Part 91 (and so much other aviation regulation) in the "negative" guarantees confusion and the creation of "inadvertent criminals".

There is no good reason for this, other than CASA choice, you take a topic, write a regulation to ban it, then follow with a string of exception, usually with multiple cross references to grossly increase likelihood of misunderstanding.

If the same "regulation" was written in the positive, what you can do, it would be far more straightforward to understand.

Then we get to the poor quality of the actual drafting, and this leaves so many avenues to argue what you can actually do.

Tootle pip!!

andrewr

17th Apr 2018, 08:49

Some of the rules seem a bit overdone.

91.275 Aircraft to be flown under VFR or IFR
(1) The pilot in command of an aircraft for a flight contravenes this subregulation if,
at any time during the flight, the aircraft is not flown under the VFR or IFR.
(2) A person commits an offence of strict liability if the person contravenes
subregulation (1).
Penalty: 50 penalty units.

I don't even know how to contravene that rule.

91.445 Additional right of way rules
Aircraft with right of way to maintain heading and speed
(1) The pilot in command of an aircraft for a flight contravenes this subregulation if,
during the flight:
(a) there is a risk of collision with another aircraft; and
(b) the aircraft has right of way over the other aircraft (in accordance with
regulation 91.440); and
(c) the aircraft’s heading and speed is not maintained until there is no longer a
risk of collision.

Really? I fly a slower aircraft, quite often I will modify heading and/or speed to allow a faster aircraft to go in front even if I have right of way. Is that forbidden?

(1) A person who fuels an aircraft contravenes this subregulation if a requirement
mentioned in subregulation (2) is not met.
(2) The requirements are the following:
(a) at all times during the fuelling, at least 2 fire extinguishers:
(i) must be on the fuelling equipment or positioned at a distance of not
less than 6 m and not more than 15 m from the fuelling point; and
(ii) must be readily available for use by the person;
(b) each fire extinguisher:
(i) must be of a type and capacity suitable for extinguishing fuel and
electrical fires;

At least 2 fire extinguishers between 6 and 15 metres from the aircraft? Anyone know what capacity is considered suitable for extinguishing fuel fires?

I can see why you would set standards for someone who provides refueling facilities, and why you might have rules to protect bystanders etc. but if you set your aircraft on fire while refueling and the closest extinguisher is 25m away surely it's your problem? Do we need a 50 penalty unit offence?

kaz3g

17th Apr 2018, 09:38

What about the many RA and rural aircraft that routinely fuel from drums?

Surely the requirement should be applied to a fixed fuel supply or at least one of above 200 litres capacity rather than the aircraft?

Kaz

Lead Balloon

17th Apr 2018, 10:09

What a God-awful mess. The machine is broken.

I’d not usually look at any of the dross trotted out as draft aviation “safety” regulations these days, but andrewr’s cut and paste had me shaking my head in disbelief.

91.275? What do I say? Might as well make it an offence if you do not fly an aircraft during the hours of daylight or darkness. Gotta be at least 10 years in gaol for that.

Right of way rules? I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of times they’ve made an operational difference in over 30 years of flying. I do trust that the millions spent on reproducing the COLREGS in domestic law, again, will be worth it.

Fire extinguishers and refuelling? I’ve looked at the draft and, as far as I can tell, the rule quoted by andrewr applies to all Australian aircraft (as defined) in Australian territory. I’m disturbed to note that my dangerous behaviour has included never having had 2 fire extinguishers positioned anywhere during refuelling. And it won’t in the future. I’m disappointed to have been forced into a life of crime.

I’ve seen reference to simulating engine failures and “shut down”. I don’t have the energy.

To quote the Spodman once again: May Jesus pee in bucket, what are these wombats on?

roundsounds

17th Apr 2018, 10:19

I’m very much a law abiding person by nature, I now don’t give a rats about Aviation rules and purely use my own judgement as to what I think is safe. Sitting behind these difficult to understand regulations are pages and pages of even more difficult manuals of standards (MOS). They tell me the Reg reform program is about simplifying things!🤪😖

Lead Balloon

18th Apr 2018, 23:49

Does anyone have any insight into the practical safety risk intended to be mitigated by this regulation:
91.275 Aircraft to be flown under VFR or IFR

(1) The pilot in command of an aircraft for a flight contravenes this subregulation if,
at any time during the flight, the aircraft is not flown under the VFR or IFR.

(2) A person commits an offence of strict liability if the person contravenes
subregulation (1).

Penalty: 50 penalty units.Can I just cross my arms during a flight and decide: Guess what, I’m now flying neither VFR nor IFR. What safety risk does that create?

It’s naughty and unsafe to fly VFR when it’s not VMC. And it’s naughty and unsafe to fly IFR without the required rating/s and equipment. But how can someone unilaterally ‘choose’ to fly neither IFR nor VFR?

Somebody must have a concept in his or head that resulted in the draft regulation.

Squawk7700

18th Apr 2018, 23:59

(1) The pilot in command of an aircraft for a flight contravenes this subregulation if,
at any time during the flight, the aircraft is not flown under the VFR or IFR.

This simply means that you can't fly in instrument conditions without being equipped and endorsed for IFR. Pretty simple really.

Lead Balloon

19th Apr 2018, 00:56

Errrmmm...that’s not what the draft reg says.

If I’m fying e.g. VFR and I enter IMC, how does that contravene the draft reg? I’ve breached the VFR, but I’m still flying VFR.

Squawk7700

19th Apr 2018, 01:14

If I’m fying e.g. VFR and I enter IMC, how does that contravene the draft reg? I’ve breached the VFR, but I’m still flying VFR.

It breaches it because you are not flying IFR and you are not flying VFR either. You can't fly VFR in IFR conditions.

If you are VFR and you enter IFR conditions and you are not equipped or endorsed/licensed for IFR, then you are flying neither and thus you are breaching.

It's about the "rules" not the weather conditions. It's Instrument Flight "RULES," not conditions.

Lead Balloon

19th Apr 2018, 02:30

Well I’m glad it makes sense to someone.

There was me thinking that if I’m flying VFR and I enter IMC I’m in breach of the rules. Now you’re telling me I’m not in breach of the rules because I’m not flying VFR or IFR, and that’s why we need a new rule making it an offence to fly neither VFR nor IFR. Brilliant. :ok:

outnabout

19th Apr 2018, 02:41

I would have thought that the proven reduced life expectancy of a VFR pilot & aircraft flying into IMC would have been enough of a deterrent but, no. Instead we have x penalty units.

And I guess the Authority had to do something because pilots do still keep trying to do it, usually with fatal results.

Apparently, Darwin’s Idea of having the stupid or the foolish remove themselves from the gene pool isn’t sufficient in today’s brave new world.

Squawk7700

19th Apr 2018, 04:39

Now you’re telling me I’m not in breach of the rules because I’m not flying VFR or IFR, and that’s why we need a new rule making it an offence to fly neither VFR nor IFR.

You ARE in breach of the rules because you are flying neither VFR or IFR.

Pilots break this rule and fly in IMC every day for numerous reasons.

Some do it on the odd occasion, dare I say those less experienced and they don't live to fly another day.

Lead Balloon

19th Apr 2018, 04:42

Correct - you are already in breach of numerous rules. That is precisely my point.

What is the purpose of yet another rule, namely proposed 91.275?

Ixixly

19th Apr 2018, 05:50

I think that's the biggest problem with these rules, it isn't that anything that wasn't illegal before has become illegal now, it's that the wording they are now using is absolutely ridiculous and requires a legal degree to be able to understand. It's an absolute disgrace that they write it in this way and expect us to have to follow it properly, they're purposely making the system difficult to understand and unnecessarily burdensome to the industry.

kaz3g

19th Apr 2018, 07:36

This simply means that you can't fly in instrument conditions without being equipped and endorsed for IFR. Pretty simple really.

Sorry Squarky, but I don't think it says that all.

If it has the meaning you give to it then it should probably say that. That would be "simple".

Kaz

Ex FSO GRIFFO

19th Apr 2018, 08:10

WOT a convoluted crock this has turned out to be....

Heartedly agree with Mr Spodman - "May Jesus pee in a bucket..."
(Hi Ya 'Spod'...:p)

The only thing I can think of is that....
1 - If you fly 'VFR', then you are in VMC and are legally able to come down to 500ft AGL - except over the usual.....
2 - If you fly 'IFR', then you may enter IMC and come down to LSALT....

But we knew that when it was written in the 'annals of time and in a much more SIMPLE manner.

NO Cheers, Nope, NONE AT ALL..!!:sad::{:ugh:

Squawk7700

19th Apr 2018, 09:23

Sorry Squarky, but I don't think it says that all.

If it has the meaning you give to it then it should probably say that. That would be "simple".

Kaz

Sometimes things are not always as they seem on the surface eh Kaz?

Instead of telling me I'm wrong, perhaps provide an alternate explanation.

Lead Balloon

19th Apr 2018, 09:31

There is a range of alternative explanations. None of them is consistent with the policy for making laws. Or with what the words say.

Let’s assume I don’t have an IFR rating and I’m flying an aircraft that is not equipped for flight in IMC. I then fly in IMC - heck, let’s assume it’s deliberate. I’ve breached numerous rules by doing so.

What does proposed 91.275 do that is not already covered by the other rules? Am I less likely to fly in IMC if I breach 7 rules instead of just 6? I’m not aware of anyone who weighs up compliance and safety risks on that basis.

Ixixly

19th Apr 2018, 09:47

Come on LB, it's not that difficult mate, I personally take out my gigantic stack of law books before I make each and every decision and add up the possible penalty points to help weigh up my options, it only takes an extra couple of weeks for each flight but at least I know I'm breaking as few laws as possible each and every time!

Checklist Charlie

19th Apr 2018, 10:31

When flying anything other than the Laws of Physics is just noise.

CC

kaz3g

19th Apr 2018, 12:08

Sometimes things are not always as they seem on the surface eh Kaz?

Instead of telling me I'm wrong, perhaps provide an alternate explanation.

Squawky...I'm just a rather geriatric lawyer of limited skills. It would take someone cleverer than I to explain what the CASA gods intend this to mean.

But I can say that English is a strange language.

Kaz

Lead Balloon

19th Apr 2018, 21:48

My point is that, on my reading, it’s not possible to breach proposed 91.275. That’s why I gave the analogy of a rule requiring an aircraft to be flown during hours of daylight or darkness.

An aircraft is always flying “under” either the VFR or the IFR. There are no other alternatives. It may be that the aircraft is flying in breach of those rules, but it’s nonetheless flying “under” either the VFR of the IFR.

Perhaps they meant to say “in accordance with” either the VFR or the IFR ....

Sunfish

19th Apr 2018, 22:15

.The rule regarding VFR/IFR flight are lethal because a VFR pilot "trapped' in IFR conditions is going to be less likely to seek help if he knows that he will be prosecuted if he survives.

Lead Balloon

19th Apr 2018, 22:31

I never have refuelled and never will refuel with 2 fire extinguishers available. Full stop.

Sunfish

19th Apr 2018, 23:04

Squawk 7700.....and its a strict liability offence.

Lead Balloon

19th Apr 2018, 23:50

How about a straw poll.

How many times have you encountered fire during refuelling?

Me: Zilch.

Alpha Whiskey Bravo

20th Apr 2018, 00:19

Ex FSO GRIFFO

20th Apr 2018, 00:22

Personally - Zilch Also - and I used to be a BP refueller. (As well as dogsbody / instructor etc etc )

However, a 'Mooney' was destroyed by fire many moons ago, at Mount Magnet, WA, I think, when the pilot used a plastic container to transfer fuel into the aircraft.

Nil 'earthing' leads.....

The static electricity generated by the splashing fuel and the different 'potentials' of the plastic container & the aircraft caused a spark of sort, and all that was left was the shape of the aircraft on the ground......

Oh Dear.

2 or 42 extinguishers would not have helped this one.

I heard that the pilot suffered some burns as he got the original 'whoosh', but survived OK.
However, the aircraft was a 'trade in' for another....whooops.....

Cheers:{

Lead Balloon

20th Apr 2018, 00:39

Perhaps the new rule should be at least 43 extinguishers? Muppets.

thunderbird five

20th Apr 2018, 01:01

43 (or other as approved) APPROVED extinguishers, or other such approved devices capable or expected to be capable of extinguishing, putting out, quelling, or quenching a fire, a fire like event, or an event perceived, expected or suspected to be a fire, used by approved personnel. All fires in aircraft must approved, and be of a ferocity not greater than the capacity of the fire suppression equipment and approved personnel available.

Did I miss anything?

Ex FSO GRIFFO

20th Apr 2018, 01:06

How about an 'approved' fire under the collective a*ses of a 'certain organisation'......

:}

Lead Balloon

20th Apr 2018, 01:14

1. Aircraft shall not catch fire. Penalty: 5,000 Penalty Units.

2. An offence against rule 1 is an offence of strict liability.

Lead Balloon

24th Apr 2018, 06:28

Sunfish I thought the very same thing when I was asked to read it and provide feedback. Technically you would be VFR in IMC however there is an overarching reg (It slips my mind right now) that says where you find yourself in an emergency situation, you are allowed to break any rule to ensure the safety of flight.

No one reads the various Road Traffic Regulations prior to getting a drivers licence, so a fundamental shift in the Examinations and the production of an AIM/VFRG is imperative to success. They have agreed to an AIM/VFRG and also to some really comprehensive education on the changes.

Oh and the CASA gentleman in charge is exceptional. He knew his stuff even though he was only in CASA for 18 months, he never said, "No we can't do that", and where he needed to, he asked the question to the rule writers in Canberra and came back pretty quickly with an explanation.

For example: Why is the reg regarding flight below 500 feet now missing, "Except due stress of weather"? Well it comes back to the overarching reg allowing you to do what is needed in an emergency. No worries, just make sure you educate that to everyone! Yep done deal.

AWBWhat overarching regulation says that if you find yourself in an emergency situation, you are allowed to break any rule to ensure the safety of flight?

Surprising that a regulation with such an effect ‘slipped your mind’.

You may just be repeating some folklore about section 30 of the Civil Aviation Act, which has nowhere near the scope you assert.

If you are flying under the VFR and end up in IMC and an emergency because you failed to obtain and review a forecast, or were flying head down PPRuNing instead of keeping a good lookout or just flew into IMC for the fun of it, believe me: You’re in deep regulatory sh*t if you survive.

If the emergency was unavoidable, that’s a defence to a prosecution for offences that you commit in dealing with the emergency.

But “unavoidable” is a very, very high threshold.

And administrative action is not a prosecution.

Two words prove this: Dominic James.

A Squared

24th Apr 2018, 08:53

I also see the requirement to fly at altitudes complying with the hemispherical rule (odds/evens plus 500’) starts at 3000’ AMSL instead of the current 5000’.

MSL or AGL? For what it's worth, it's above 3000ft AGL in the US and Canada. I had to look it up for Canada. Funny, a while back I got lectured by an unpleasant FSS troll in Whitehorse because I'd filed a flight plan for a generally south-east VFR flight at 3000 ft which was (according to her) not a legal altitude for my direction of flight. At the time, I'd just assumed she knew what she was talking about and the laws were different in Canada, so I changed it to 3500. With my new found knowledge, it turns out she was mistaken, in addition to unpleasant. Anyway, apologies for the digression. No idea what the reason for the change is in Oz, but I've never found it too burdensome in the US.

Left 270

26th Apr 2018, 11:54

For example: Why is the reg regarding flight below 500 feet now missing, "Except due stress of weather"? Well it comes back to the overarching reg allowing you to do what is needed in an emergency. No worries, just make sure you educate that to everyone! Yep done deal.

AWB

Based on that, the change is that now you would have to declare an emergency vs the stress of weather relief previously allowed. Subtle but different.

With the simulated engine failure change, am I right to say that you would no longer be able to do OEI training in a B200? Or did you need to be both >9 pax and over 8xxxkg?

djpil

27th Apr 2018, 11:26

Draft Part 91 MOS Landing (takeoff is similar) Performance

“For subsection (2), the following must be taken into account:

(a) the landing distance available;

(b) the pressure altitude and temperature;

(c) the gradient of the runway in the direction of the landing;

(d) the wind direction, velocity and characteristics;

(e) the landing weather forecast;

(f) the obstacles in the approach path.

(4) The weight of the aeroplane at landing must not exceed the weight limitations contained in or derived from:

(i) theAFM;or

(ii) themanufacturer’sdatamanual(ifany);or

(iii) other data approved for the purpose.”

Consider a type approved to an early version of FAR 23 and still in production - the Super Decathlon. Nil info in the AFM. Manufacturers data based on the best achievement by a test pilot with no allowance for average pilot skill nor percentage allowance for conservatism. No other data is approved (the old D.O.T. P charts are not approved nor may they be valid for a newer production variant).

Manufacturers data has other issues:

approach speed way way below 1.3 Vs, the accepted safety standard therefore unsafe
Sealed surface only, not grass so we can’t comply with the regs at our usual airstrips
Nil info on runway gradient so that rules out some more airfields
Nil info on tailwinds so will have to hold if Tower notifies a tailwind

The current model certified Pitts S-2C that I fly has takeoff and landing distances in the FAA approved POH. Hard surface runway so not short, dry grass as I normally operate from. No effect of runway gradient. Nil wind only! Gee, CASA doesn't let me extrapolate beyond the approved data so can only operate from a sealed, level runway with nil wind?

A Cessna 172S that I fly occasionally also has takeoff and landing distances per an FAA approved POH and it has some useful extra info. Paved runway plus an allowance for short, dry grass. Nil wind with allowances for headwind and tailwind provided. Nil info on runway gradient however.

Sunfish

27th Apr 2018, 22:10

The criminal laws contained in Part 91 are broad and far-reaching enough that an aggressive regulator will always have a pretext to bring charges against anyone. This is entirely intentional. Those whom the establishment want punished are punished.

At the same time, because everybody and anybody can be made into a criminal whenever convenient, the converse is that violating the law is considered blameless, praiseworthy even, when doing so aligns with consensus establishment goals.

There is no point in studying Part 91, it's purpose is simply to criminalize any action by a pilot if so desired.

outnabout

30th Apr 2018, 23:19

I have developed a theory about Part 91, and regulatory reform in general.

I note small items have snuck into the AIPs...such as an aircraft may not land until the previous aircraft has landed, is clear of the runway, and is taxi-ing away from the runway in use. (My objection to this is that if the previous aircraft lands, exits the runway, and shuts down due to an issue, technically the incoming aircraft should not land.)

I note in Part 91, to land before the previous aircraft is taxi-ing away from the runway is now a criminal offence.

I wonder if the AIPs have been re-written to include all the stuff that our friendly regulator would like to have happen, and are now re-writing the regs to make non-compliance a criminal offence.

Conspiracy theory of the paranoid? Probably. 20 years in aviation will do that to a person....

Lead Balloon

1st May 2018, 00:03

The AIP has always been the depository (suppository?) of the occasional legally unsupported strong opinion. One of the more prominent recent examples was the Mildura airport operator modifying the YMIA ERSA entry to purport to ban glider flights above the airport and ballooning and aerobatics within 5 nm. Minor issue was that the ban was not backed by any lawful exercise of power.

It was also interesting watching what used to be GAAPs being slowly AIP’d back into GAAPs after the transition to what was supposed to be ‘pure’ Class D. Before that there was the occasional outbreak of ‘clearance required before taxiing’ in GAAPs that had to be eradicated by complaint to Reg Meissner.

There is pervading folklore to the effect that merely putting stuff in AIP makes it a binding rule. But that’s not how it works.

The stuff in CARs and CASRs and CAOs (and MOSs and exemptions and approvals ect) is, simply as a consequence of the regulatory ‘reform’ paradigm, just an expression of the strong opinions of people in CASA. That’s not a conspiracy theory: it’s what the paradigm dictates. That’s one of the reasons for the regulatory dog’s breakfast that’s been produced and will continue to be produced, for ever.