Forced Landing on Collaroy Beach NSW

[jportzer]

Not sure if newsworthy, looks like a textbook forced landing, so good work to the pilot:
ABC News: Pilot makes emergency landing on Sydney's Collaroy Beach (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-05-26/nsw-plane-lands-on-collaroy-beach/100167410)

[mcoates]

3 people in a 2 seat aircraft... Not a good idea

[The Golden Rivet]

3 people in a 2 seat aircraft... Not a good idea

always wanted to know which text book they referred too?

[Jnr380]

3 people in a 2 seat aircraft... Not a good idea

Can’t you have a baby on your lap? I always thought you can up to the age of 2

[wombat watcher]

3 people in a 2 seat aircraft... Not a good idea

you need to get back in your box. It was a very young baby.

[mcoates]

Check the CAO's.... LSA is a 2 seat aircraft, not a 3-seater. No, you can't have a baby/child on your lap, restrained or otherwise.

Unborn, yes but once delivered absolutely NO

[Stikman]

you need to get back in your box. It was a very young baby.
Look at the rego....it's an RA-Aus aircraft. No more than 1 pax allowed.

[The Bullwinkle]

Look at the rego....it's an RA-Aus aircraft. No more than 1 pax allowed.
And I’d say that’s probably why they were reluctant to be interviewed.
Absolutely in contravention to the Regs.

[junior.VH-LFA]

It’s honestly wild to me that anyone would fly with a young child unrestrained.

Legal or not, it defies common sense.

[FlexibleResponse]

My goodness...a severe outbreak of wokeness!

[slacktide]

It’s honestly wild to me that anyone would fly with a young child unrestrained.

I see no indication that the child was unrestrained. Do you know something that the rest of us don't? My younger brother spent many,many hours restrained in a child seat that was strapped into the baggage compartment of a Piper Arrow, effectively turning it into a illegal 5-seat aircraft. It was the 1970's, nobody cared.

[Squawk7700]

I see no indication that the child was unrestrained. Do you know something that the rest of us don't? My younger brother spent many,many hours restrained in a child seat that was strapped into the baggage compartment of a Piper Arrow, effectively turning it into a illegal 5-seat aircraft. It was the 1970's, nobody cared.

OMG the humanity. I hope your brother survived with no long lasting effects from such a traumatic experience !! A Piper aircraft, eew! :-)

[KRviator]

Look at the rego....it's an RA-Aus aircraft. No more than 1 pax allowed.You sure about that? CAO95.55 says "One-place" or "Two place". Nothing about the amount of people on board. You'll also find their Ops Manual refers to "the carriage of passengers in a recreational aircraft", not "carriage of a passenger"...

[mcoates]

as you know we operate under an exemption to the civil aviation order and regulations of 1998 and as amended thereafter. The exemption is known as 95.55 and this allows recreational aircraft to operate under this exemption.

It is very clear from the start, 1.1 that "this order applies to a single-place or a 2 Place aeroplane, other than a weight shift controlled aeroplane or a powered parachute."

That's it, if it is registered with the RA-Aus, it is not a weight shift controlled aeroplane or a powered parachute then the exemptions permitted which allow it to fly only apply to a single place or a 2 Place aeroplane.

This is straight from the legislation.

there is a section on interpretations of the order which give explanations about different things and it does not include anything to do with people because it is already identified are not subject to interpretation when you refer to section 1.1

It also refers you under regulation 200.025 of CASR paragraph 20AB (1) (a) saying that you must also operate under "the sport aviation bodies operations manual"

This also As a limit of 2 seats which therefore means 2 people maximum

[KRviator]

as you know we operate under an exemption to the civil aviation order and regulations of 1998 and as amended thereafter. The exemption is known as 95.55 and this allows recreational aircraft to operate under this exemption.

It is very clear from the start, 1.1 that "this order applies to a single-place or a 2 Place aeroplane, other than a weight shift controlled aeroplane or a powered parachute."

That's it, if it is registered with the RA-Aus, it is not a weight shift controlled aeroplane or a powered parachute then the exemptions permitted which allow it to fly only apply to a single place or a 2 Place aeroplane.

This is straight from the legislation.

there is a section on interpretations of the order which give explanations about different things and it does not include anything to do with people because it is already identified are not subject to interpretation when you refer to section 1.1

It also refers you under regulation 200.025 of CASR paragraph 20AB (1) (a) saying that you must also operate under "the sport aviation bodies operations manual"

This also As a limit of 2 seats which therefore means 2 people maximumTwo seat's does not mean two people... You can carry an infant on your lap - sans seatbelt too - and you can legally have 2 kids share a seat if they're not over 77Kg - which is how you can get 5 people into a 172. The interesting thing about the relevant CAO, being CAO20.16.3, is it says 2 seaters can have 1 excess passenger - and it applies to all Australian registered aircraft. Not just those used for hire or reward.

While RAAus ops are exempted from pretty much all the CASR's, there's only a handful of the CAR's that they're exempt from, however, they are not exempt from complying with the CAO's, so CAO20.16.3 would apply.

If anyone can show me the RAAus Ops Manual chapter that says you must only carry one passenger, I'll happily admit I'm wrong. But I'm pretty sure you won't...

[Ia8825]

M Coates, Well very interesting that you’re pretending to know about several rules which you clearly have no idea about in reality. Firstly, CAO 95.55 had been superseded by RA AUS becoming a part 149 organisation, hence why if you look it up on the com law website it will show as repealed in January this year. So any reference you make to that is now irrelevant. So I guess you don’t know what you’re talking about.

Despite what many in RA AUS think, they are not exempt from all CARS/CAOS, only certain ones which relate to things like licences, aircraft certification etc. All other regulations still apply, and in this case that would include CAO 20.16, which will become relevant in a minute. Under part 141 RA AUS aircraft are still limited to a maximum of 2 seats. However under CAO 20.16 2 seats doesn’t mean a maximum of 2 people. An infant can, under the provisions of CAO 20.16, fly without needing a seat, as appears to have occurred in this situation. Now as you validly pointed out the CASR state that you must operate under the governing bodies operations manual. And given you clearly know all the rules so well, I’m guessing you know that the RA AUS ops manual states under section 2.01 (4) “that in order to carry passengers the pilot must have a passenger carrying endorsement”. Given it is referring to passengers in the plural I think it’s reasonable to assume they are allowing for the provisions of CAO 20.16.

So as wombat watcher said, get back in your box.

[mcoates]

No you cant... not in and recreational aircraft.

Commercial aircraft have different rules.... some people just don't get it and I'm glad that I'm not flying anywhere near you if your understanding of the regulations are so poor.

it's in the CAO's, it is not in the RA-Aus technical manual as such because the CAO's define how many people can actually be in an RA-Aus registered aircraft and that is 2 people, no babies sitting on laps, no children in multiples in one adult seat etc... geeez

[Ia8825]

Two seat's does not mean two people... You can carry an infant on your lap - sans seatbelt too - and you can legally have 2 kids share a seat if they're not over 77Kg - which is how you can get 5 people into a 172. The interesting thing about the relevant CAO, being CAO20.16.3, is it says 2 seaters can have 1 excess passenger - and it applies to all Australian registered aircraft. Not just those used for hire or reward.

While RAAus ops are exempted from pretty much all the CASR's, there's only a handful of the CAR's that they're exempt from, however, they are not exempt from complying with the CAO's, so CAO20.16.3 would apply.

If anyone can show me the RAAus Ops Manual chapter that says you must only carry one passenger, I'll happily admit I'm wrong. But I'm pretty sure you won't...

100% nailed it.

[Ia8825]

No you cant... not in and recreational aircraft.

Commercial aircraft have different rules.... some people just don't get it and I'm glad that I'm not flying anywhere near you if your understanding of the regulations are so poor.

it's in the CAO's, it is not in the RA-Aus technical manual as such because the CAO's define how many people can actually be in an RA-Aus registered aircraft and that is 2 people, no babies sitting on laps, no children in multiples in one adult seat etc... geeez

You don’t know the rules or the ops manual as well as you think you do. Now shush

[KRviator]

it's in the CAO's, it is not in the RA-Aus technical manual as such because the CAO's define how many people can actually be in an RA-Aus registered aircraft and that is 2 people,Show me.

And a few more characters to keep Prune happy.

[KRviator]

Point of order, the original one was, however, Senor Crawford signed another self-repealing version into force 25 January 2021, that expires 31 January 2024, or earlier of the Part 103/105/131 amendments kick off. From what I can tell, it's still current. Here it is. (https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2021L00073)
This Order:
(a) commences on 1 February 2021; and
(b) is repealed on the earlier of the following:
(i) the day of commencement of Schedule 1 to the Civil Aviation Legislation Amendment (Parts 103, 105 and 131) Regulations 2019;
(ii) the end of 31 January 2024.It still refers to "Single-Place" or "Two-Place" which, as CAO 20.16.3 stipulates, does not mean "Single-Person" or "Two-Person".

Commercial aircraft have different rules.... some people just don't get it and I'm glad that I'm not flying anywhere near you if your understanding of the regulations are so poor.Could it be it is not my understanding of the regulations is poor. You forget, I'm the one who argued their own rules against them and got my RV-9A registered with RAAus - and as a two seater too - when everyone else "Knew" you couldn't register one with them because "you won't meet the HP/Seat formula" or "Your stall speed is too high" or "You can't carry two adults"...I showed RAAus - and the naysayers where they were wrong. I've asked you to show me where I am wrong - because all you've done thus far is make a vague reference to "it's in the CAO's" while not understanding the very CAO under discussion applies to all Australian aircraft, rather, you've confused it with only applying to Commercial aircraft.

I wonder if I could get my two rugrat's in the RV now it's been re-registered VH? I'm not limited by a 600Kg MTOW anymore! :}

[Ia8825]

Point of order, the original one was, however, Senor Crawford signed another self-repealing version into force 25 January 2021, that expires 31 January 2024, or earlier of the Part 103/105/131 amendments kick off. From what I can tell, it's still current. Here it is. (https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2021L00073)
It still refers to "Single-Place" or "Two-Place" which, as CAO 20.16.3 stipulates, does not mean "Single-Person" or "Two-Person".

You are, as per usual, correct. And the RA AUS part 149 exposition refers back to it. However as I believe you and I have both pointed out, it only limits the number of seats in a recreational aircraft, not the number of passengers.

[The Bullwinkle]

You’d like to think that the CEO of RAAus knows what he’s talking about.

https://www.australianflying.com.au/recreational/we-don-t-want-four-seaters-raausRecreational Aviation Australia (RAAus) CEO Michael Linke has told Australian Flying that the organisation has no interest in administering four-seat aircraft.RAAus has a submission with the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) to raise the maximum take-off weight of recreational aircraft to 1500 kg, sparking speculation in the industry that the organisation is chasing the right to administer four-seaters.

Currently, recreational aircraft can carry only the pilot and one passenger.

"We've put the submission in, but we've been very careful to address the risk factors, the inertia factors, being heavier aircraft they're going to have different handling characteristics, different stall characteristics and different maintenance requirements," Linke said.

"The one thing we're not doing is increasing the number of people in the aircraft, seeking more passengers. That's not what RAAus is. We're about one person flying with a single passenger. We're not about carrying people around, it's not sightseeing; it's purely recreational with a pilot and passenger."

CASA is believed to be still considering the submission after RAAus responded to some questions the regulator wanted answered.

[Ia8825]

You’d like to think that the CEO of RAAus knows what he’s talking about.

https://www.australianflying.com.au/recreational/we-don-t-want-four-seaters-raausRecreational Aviation Australia (RAAus) CEO Michael Linke has told Australian Flying that the organisation has no interest in administering four-seat aircraft.RAAus has a submission with the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) to raise the maximum take-off weight of recreational aircraft to 1500 kg, sparking speculation in the industry that the organisation is chasing the right to administer four-seaters.

Currently, recreational aircraft can carry only the pilot and one passenger.

"We've put the submission in, but we've been very careful to address the risk factors, the inertia factors, being heavier aircraft they're going to have different handling characteristics, different stall characteristics and different maintenance requirements," Linke said.

"The one thing we're not doing is increasing the number of people in the aircraft, seeking more passengers. That's not what RAAus is. We're about one person flying with a single passenger. We're not about carrying people around, it's not sightseeing; it's purely recreational with a pilot and passenger."

CASA is believed to be still considering the submission after RAAus responded to some questions the regulator wanted answered.

Then he may want to make the regulations match what he is saying then. Because at the moment they don’t match with him.

[mcoates]

you cant argue with stupidity... Just wait for the court case, simples

[L'aviateur]

Regardless of the passenger questions, thats one seriously good effort in achieving such a positive outcome from a forced landing, especially in that location. Good effort.

[KRviator]

you cant argue with stupidity... Just wait for the court case, simplesOr you could actually do your own research and attempt to verify your claims with references and data rather than try to show what a hero you are by playing the man, not the ball...
Regardless of the passenger questions, thats one seriously good effort in achieving such a positive outcome from a forced landing, especially in that location. Good effort.Just make sure someone is there to film the takeoff. See if they do any better than the Jab did...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idMa4a6eA9M

[Squawk7700]

That’s a quote from the “ex” CEO BTW.

[mcoates]

When in doubt call the source....

Confirmation is, only 2 people can fly in an RA-Aus registered aircraft. No infants or 3rd person under any circumstance.

No dogs, unless you have a written exemption from CASA to carry the dog, and then it must be caged, there must be no chance of dog wee going anywhere in the aircraft.. my words not theirs, and the cage must be securely mounted.

[Checklist Charlie]

there must be no chance of dog wee going anywhere in the aircraft.

Apparently this from the same source (aviation regulator) that had a CAO that said you could carry swine as long as it was restrained in a cage/box that would prevent escape by rooting.

Now they are worried about a bit of water. The same sort they seem to be full of!

CC

[KRviator]

When in doubt call the source....

Confirmation is, only 2 people can fly in an RA-Aus registered aircraft. No infants or 3rd person under any circumstance.

No dogs, unless you have a written exemption from CASA to carry the dog, and then it must be caged, there must be no chance of dog wee going anywhere in the aircraft.. my words not theirs, and the cage must be securely mounted.And the reference for this un-named persons opinion is.....?

[mcoates]

RA-Aus of course 02 6280 4700

[Ia8825]

RA-Aus of course 02 6280 4700
Ok so at best that's half an answer to KRAviator's question. WHO at RA Aus? Given phone numbers themselves aren't terribly good at providing air law advice I have to assume you spoke to a person. And frankly the air law knowledge of some of the senior operations staff at RA Aus isn't that flash either, given some of them don't know their own Ops Manual, and I have had some rather senior people say the AIP doesn't apply to RA pilots.

[mcoates]

it's easy to see that a couple of the people here no more than the regulators.

The RA-Aus are delegated by CASA to register and license this end of the market segment. They should know their own rules and they were very clear with what they told me.

Maximum of 2 people in an RA-Aus aircraft at any time, no 3rd person is allowed regardless of size or age.

I have to do acknowledge that they know what they're talking about because they are CASA delegated authority to this end of the industry.

They are not aviation lawyer wannabes.

As I said earlier, you can't fight with stupidity!

Just wait-and-see what happens, it'll either go away by itself because no offence was committed, or action will be taken.

It wasn't you flying the aircraft was it ? and that is why you are so defensive ?

[mcoates]

honestly, it is pointless communicating with some of you guys. To avoid any confusion I contacted the CASA appointed body that controls Recreational Aviation Australia. The control is delegated to the RA-Aus by CASA.

They should know everything about flying aircraft registered with them. The answer I got was an explicit NO, only 2 people in an RA-Aus aircraft, no children, no infants

[KRviator]

honestly, it is pointless communicating with some of you guys. To avoid any confusion I contacted the CASA appointed body that controls Recreational Aviation Australia. The control is delegated to the RA-Aus by CASA.
They should know everything about flying aircraft registered with them. The answer I got was an explicit NO, only 2 people in an RA-Aus aircraft, no children, no infantsit's easy to see that a couple of the people here no more than the regulators.
The RA-Aus are delegated by CASA to register and license this end of the market segment. They should know their own rules and they were very clear with what they told me.
Maximum of 2 people in an RA-Aus aircraft at any time, no 3rd person is allowed regardless of size or age.
I have to do acknowledge that they know what they're talking about because they are CASA delegated authority to this end of the industry.
They are not aviation lawyer wannabes.
As I said earlier, you can't fight with stupidity!
Just wait-and-see what happens, it'll either go away by itself because no offence was committed, or action will be taken.
It wasn't you flying the aircraft was it ? and that is why you are so defensive ?So, again, what reference where you provided?

You haven't even documented who you claim to have spoken to, apart from "RAAus". Was it the Tech Manager? Was it the CEO? The Chairman? Or the admin staff who answered the phone? You try to belittle other PPruner's by 'arguing against stupidity' but you yourself cannot provide a single reference to substantiate your position, only an obscure comment about a telephone call to someone in RAAus. :rolleyes:

As much as I would like to believe those in RAAus know what they're talking about, prior personal experience, documented both here and on other forums, demonstrate that is not always the case. I refer you to RAAus violating their own privacy policy by disclosing members addresses to aerodrome operators, before their (amended) privacy policy allowed it. I also refer you to a post of mine (https://www.recreationalflying.com/topic/24034-no-word-from-raa/page/2/?tab=comments#comment-276932) from 2014 where RAAus refused to allow my RV-9A - which met the requirements of CAO 95.55 - on to their register because their then-tech manager was sure he knew the legislation that administers their operations. And you know what? He was proven wrong, and for 4 years, I flew an RV-9A under RAAus administration, registered as a 2-seater, with a BEW of 445Kg and a 600Kg MTOW limit.

As you've said, you'd like to think they know what they're talking about - but if they can't even understand CAO 95.55 - arguably the most common piece of legislation that administers their operations - what hope do you think they have of understanding a relatively obscure CAO?

[Head..er..wind]

honestly, it is pointless communicating with some of you guys. To avoid any confusion I contacted the CASA appointed body that controls Recreational Aviation Australia. The control is delegated to the RA-Aus by CASA.

They should know everything about flying aircraft registered with them. The answer I got was an explicit NO, only 2 people in an RA-Aus aircraft, no children, no infants


The person who seems to be creating the confusion while having no idea what communication is, is you Michael Coates. Perhaps if you simply provide the information that has been asked of you, then people might trust what you are saying. So far you have merely provided arrogant petulant comments; rather like a politician actually.

[Squawk7700]

where RAAus refused to allow my RV-9A - which met the requirements of CAO 95.55 - on to their register because their then-tech manager was sure he knew the legislation that administers their operations. And you know what? He was proven wrong, and for 4 years, I flew an RV-9A under RAAus administration, registered as a 2-seater, with a BEW of 445Kg and a 600Kg MTOW limit.



What a useless aircraft! 2 x 70 kg's crew and 15 litres of fuel. Based on that, you wouldn't even be able to fit a tie-down kit.

No wonder they tried to stop you... it doesn't pass the sniff test and based on history of other operators that put RV's on the register, they frequently flew over-weight, so I'm not surprised they did what they did.

Are you suggesting that you never flew that aircraft over 600 kg's?

[sagesau]

Unfortunately we live in a society that continues to insist on making increasingly complex and expensive legislation because of an obsession by some to operate in a loop hole. What we need is legislation that defines an intent rather than an action then we'd only need one piece of legalise, "don't be a smartarse".
[edit] I hereby plead guilty :ugh:

[Ia8825]

What a useless aircraft! 2 x 70 kg's crew and 15 litres of fuel. Based on that, you wouldn't even be able to fit a tie-down kit.

No wonder they tried to stop you... it doesn't pass the sniff test and based on history of other operators that put RV's on the register, they frequently flew over-weight, so I'm not surprised they did what they did.

Are you suggesting that you never flew that aircraft over 600 kg's?

It seems a bit out of line to be accusing someone of breaching the rules with no evidence other than your calculator. Perhaps KRAviator only wanted to fly single person, day VFR for shorter flights with the minimum of fuss and bother on the paperwork side. Given he has indicated it is no longer RA Registered then perhaps as their mission changed then they changed to VH reg to remain compliant with the regulations?

[mcoates]

I now have it in writing from the RA-Aus but I need to seek the author's permission to publish to third party and in particular to the forum. I will happily do that when permission is granted

[KRviator]

What a useless aircraft! 2 x 70 kg's crew and 15 litres of fuel. Based on that, you wouldn't even be able to fit a tie-down kit.You're right, assuming I needed to take a second adult. But that wasn't the mission I built it for, I built it as a high-speed single seater that I could also take one of my kids with, until they got too heavy. 155Kg gave the option of: me + 4h of fuel, or Me + Mini-Me + 2 hrs fuel, and that was perfectly adequate until the kids grew up, then it was re-registered VH- as she remains today.

In the 4 years under RAAus administration, I flew with a second adult twice. Once with a colleague & pilot mate who was dying of cancer and weighed about 45kg wringing wet, we did a loop from Caloundra - Gympie and back with all of 30L on board, the other was 6 months later to scatter his ashes from the RV, with a 20 minute lap from Caloundra with his 60kg wife, who had flown GA hundreds of times and understood it well enough to accept & ignore the low fuel alarms on the Dynon

No wonder they tried to stop you... it doesn't pass the sniff test and based on history of other operators that put RV's on the register, they frequently flew over-weight, so I'm not surprised they did what they did.The point is, what they think they are allowed to do, and what they have a legal obligation to do, or are allowed to do are not always the same. There is no practical difference between an RV-9 and a J230 with its' 760Kg MTOW, yet I've never heard of a Jab causing the angst an RV does with RAAus....

Are you suggesting that you never flew that aircraft over 600 kg's?To the best of my knowledge, no, not once. I didn't need to.

[Ia8825]

Unfortunately we live in a society that continues to insist on making increasingly complex and expensive legislation because of an obsession by some to operate in a loop hole. What we need is legislation that defines an intent rather than an action then we'd only need one piece of legalise, "don't be a smartarse".
[edit] I hereby plead guilty :ugh:

I don't think that is really the issue at all, and I believe legally the intent of legislation is a consideration, but then it cant really override the letter of the law. Intent can really only truly be understood by the person who drafted the law, and if this forum proves anything it is that people with different backgrounds are always going to interpret laws slightly differently.

However if we have ever wondered why people push aircraft into bad situations then this forum probably demonstrates part of the issue, as everything gets analysed by the peanut gallery who like to pretend they are saints who have never breached any laws at any point in their life. The point everyone is arguing over here is so technical as to be essentially irrelevant, but hey, I guess we all have to find something to be outraged by...

And to MCoates, no, I wasnt the pilot, and don't know the pilot.

[Squawk7700]

Jabs only weigh 350-370kg empty which is why there’s no angst caused.

The issue with them registering an RV9 as a 2 seater is that once it’s in the system it’s hard to get it out, especially once it changes hands. If you don’t fly it overnight, the next guy probably will, as has happened before. They have to draw the line somewhere and or work to a formulae. Problem being that if they implement a formulae, it won’t please everyone and next they’ll be trying to withdraw rego on a converted 150 or a Colt or something and the cycle begins again.

[john_tullamarine]

(Caveat - I'm not an RAA person.)

I would have expected that 20.16.3.12.2 and 20.16.3.13.2(2) should be relevant to the infant ?

My take is that the first requirement precludes the carriage ?

[aroa]

Wow, so much angst over 2 + kid. And only 2 seats...shock horror and dismay. Wtf !
Looks like their practical solution to me. Can’t just lock the kid in the car while you go off flying.
Dad plus Mum plus kid, and restrained in her seat belt... and within weight limits...so what.
Successful forced landing ...all good.

Is this country so bound up in bureaucratic bs that people can’t make their own decisions anymore.
Yes in spades. Commonsense and practicality are not allowed, Obviously.

[mcoates]

the other was 6 months later to scatter his ashes from the RV,.

Damm, now your admitting to dropping something from an aircraft ??? Section 29.5 of the Civil Aviation Orders

Off we go again

[Ia8825]

Wow, so much angst over 2 + kid. And only 2 seats...shock horror and dismay. Wtf !
Looks like their practical solution to me. Can’t just lock the kid in the car while you go off flying.
Dad plus Mum plus kid, and restrained in her seat belt... and within weight limits...so what.
Successful forced landing ...all good.

Is this country so bound up in bureaucratic bs that people can’t make their own decisions anymore.
Yes in spades. Commonsense and practicality are not allowed, Obviously.

Your common sense approach has no place here. The dumb thing is if it had a VH rego on the side it wouldn’t even be an argument (I’m sure the peanut gallery could still find something to criticise him for) so it’s not like what he did was some reckless breach of the rules putting lives at risk. In fact no one can actually tell either way if any rule has been breached... it seems like some GA vs RA pissing contest to me...

[Checkboard]

I now have it in writing from the RA-Aus but I need to seek the author's permission to publish to third party and in particular to the forum. I will happily do that when permission is granted
No one here is going to give a stuff, unless that written advice includes a reference to some form of legislation - that you don't understand that is ... amusing.

Damm, now your admitting to dropping something from an aircraft ??? Section 29.5 of the Civil Aviation Orders

Off we go again
Wow. Way to show lack of empathy dude. How do you rate on the sociopath scale (https://www.psycom.net/antisocial-personality-disorder-sociopath-test/)??


I would have expected that 20.16.3.12.2 and 20.16.3.13.2(2) should be relevant to the infant ?
12.2 The number of passengers carried in an aircraft for which an emergency evacuation demonstration is not required may exceed the number of approved passenger seats fitted in the aircraft only if the excess number of passengers:

(a) has been approved by CASA; or

(b) does not exceed the number specified in column 2 of the following table opposite the number of passenger seats specified in column 1;

and the excess passengers are infants or children:

Table

Column 1
No. of passenger seats

Column 2
No. of excess passengers

2-6 ... 1

I don't see a problem there. Two seats, one excess passenger allowed.

(2) When an infant is carried in the arms or on the lap of a passenger in accordance with subparagraph 13.2 (1) the seat belt, when required to be worn, shall be fastened around the passengers carrying or nursing the infant, but not around the infant.
I don't see any problem there, either??

[Squawk7700]

Honest question, is the pilot seat also a passenger seat, meaning that the table above wouldn’t come into effect unless the aircraft had 3 seats, or is every seat in an aircraft a passenger seat?

[Ia8825]

Honest question, is the pilot seat also a passenger seat, meaning that the table above wouldn’t come into effect unless the aircraft had 3 seats, or is every seat in an aircraft a passenger seat?

Very valid question, and I can’t find a definitive answer either way. Like most of our regulations it’s written vaguely enough that casa will always have a way to hang you if they feel like it.

[john_tullamarine]

I don't see a problem there. Two seats, one excess passenger allowed.
I don't see any problem there, either??

Perhaps I should have been a little more expansive in my previous post.

(a) 20.16.3.12.2(b) specifies 2-6 passenger seats in the first entry of the table. 20.16.3.2 (definitions) specifies that a passenger is a person who is not a crew member, ergo passenger seats exclude crew seats and, a 2-seat aircraft presents a problem ? While I don't know the original logic for the Order's requirement, I would speculate that it had to do with a potential for interference with, or obstruction of, a second set of controls ?

(b) the reference to 20.16.3.13.2(2) was to draw attention to the requirement that an infant held on the lap of a passenger should not be restrained by the passenger's seat belt. This is a very dangerous practice considering crashworthiness and just about guarantees the infant's death in the event of significant decelerations during a mishap. The only sensible way to carry an infant is in an automotive car seat for which CASA has some airworthiness rules in place. I presume that the rule is for the reasonable benefit of airline carriage, although some airlines will provide for a baby seat on request.

Sometimes, the regulatory devil is in the nitty gritty detail. Putting aside the usual gratuitous, throwaway comments sprinkled throughout the thread, my concerns related to various comments including some in posts 11, 15, 16, 21.

Honest question, is the pilot seat also a passenger seat, meaning that the table above wouldn’t come into effect unless the aircraft had 3 seats, or is every seat in an aircraft a passenger seat?
Very valid question, and I can’t find a definitive answer either way. Like most of our regulations it’s written vaguely enough that casa will always have a way to hang you if they feel like it.

Refer definitions.

The main thing of interest, of course, is that the folk in the aircraft were unharmed by the mishap.

[DeRated]

The main thing of interest, of course, is why is it on the beach?

Obviously it was the baby's fault!

(Thanks John, for your reasoned information)

[Squawk7700]

The main thing of interest, of course, is why is it on the beach?

Obviously it was the baby's fault!

(Thanks John, for your reasoned information)

Good question! There’s a heap of talk about this incident and I don’t think I’ve even seen anyone mention or question what happened to the engine; fuel or otherwise… it’s all about the baby.

It was noted that it was “minor” engine failure, so presumably partial power loss.

[StallsDeep]

Pretty clear from a quick glance at the CAO that an extra passenger was prohibited in this scenario ie the Tecnam has one pilot seat and one passenger seat.

Whats the point of the regs if we just pick and choose which ones to comply with?

[visibility3miles]

I have seen restraints that attach to a passengers seat belt and restrain the infant or baby. Since the restraint attaches to the belt it is the belt restraining the infant and not the adults arms, nor is the infant between the adult and the seat belt, which could crush them.


https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/300x400/image_bb1722e7b5f5e98c46aec929c375ca91be75b9b3.jpeg

[visibility3miles]

I wonder if weight and balance is the issue when you discuss how many passengers should be on board rather than arguing if a baby, if properly strapped in, was the major concern.

Some adults carry more than the weight of a baby in their beer gut, yet I don’t see many weight scales at small airports.

[Ixixly]

Would love to see some of you lot in a court case:
You: "Your honor, my interpretation of the law is that what I did is allowed"
Judge: "Were you told by a delegate of the authority that your interpretation is wrong?"
You: "Yes your honor but once again, I don't think they were correct so I did it anyway"
Judge: "Mmmmhmm, well, whilst this was a complete waste of everyone's time, at least you made it quick, you're guilty"

[andrewr]

Judge: "Were you told by a delegate of the authority that your interpretation is wrong?"

I don't think judges work that way either. They tend to look at what the actual regulations say. not opinions - even if they are opinions of a delegate of the authority.

[Ixixly]

I don't think judges work that way either. They tend to look at what the actual regulations say. not opinions - even if they are opinions of a delegate of the authority.

Yeah, admittedly I was being a bit facetious but you get the point, you'd be a brave person in this particular case to go out with 3 POB knowing a delegate has said otherwise just because you believe in your interpretation.

[andrewr]

you'd be a brave person in this particular case to go out with 3 POB knowing a delegate has said otherwise

I don't think anyone is suggesting they were told that before the flight. If someone wants to prosecute them they really will have to find a regulation that says it's not allowed, and no-one has quoted one yet.

This thread is an illustration of the problems with Australian aviation regulation - everyone operates on a consensus of what they think the rules should be not what they actually say. If you want to refer to the actual regulations you are viewed as a troublemaker.

I have had a few dealings with the Australian Tax Office in the past where I have asked whether particular things are allowed. Without fail, their reply has included references to supporting legislation or rulings. If only our aviation authorities worked the same way.

[corrigin]

Lots of interpretations of whether the Pilot in Command is guilty of non compliance of CAO 20.16.3.12.2, and here I am thinking two things:

(1) Well done on his actions to ensure the safety of the flight. Legal or illegal; right to wrong - well done. I hope he doesn’t lose his license for any wrongdoing.

(2) What are “metes”?

[Ixixly]

I don't think anyone is suggesting they were told that before the flight. If someone wants to prosecute them they really will have to find a regulation that says it's not allowed, and no-one has quoted one yet.

I was talking about people in this thread from some of the replies, not this flight, absolutely nothing suggests they thought otherwise.

[SBrommers]

The young guy did not break any CASA regulations by having a baby on board. He may have broken some as yet unpublished RAAus rule but he certainly didn't break the law. Do your homework. Its easy to find on the CASA website.

[andrewr]

(a) 20.16.3.12.2(b) specifies 2-6 passenger seats in the first entry of the table. 20.16.3.2 (definitions) specifies that a passenger is a person who is not a crew member, ergo passenger seats exclude crew seats and, a 2-seat aircraft presents a problem

If this argument is correct, it indeed presents a problem.

If the number of passenger seats excludes crew seats, the number of passenger seats in a 152 is zero, the number of passenger seats in a 172 is 2 etc. 20.16.3.12.2 says the number of passengers can only exceed the number of passenger seats if the excess passengers are infants or children. So a C152 is not allowed to carry a passenger, and a C172 could only carry 2 passengers, not 3, unless the third was a child.

[john_tullamarine]

​​​​​I wonder if weight and balance is the ..

Probably not. W&B is readily addressed by routine pilot stuff, albeit that the calculated numbers are a tad rubbery.

CAAP 235-1(1), p11 is relevant regarding standard weights in small aircraft. The CAAP is based on a detailed report by John Klingberg, then an airworthiness performance engineer with the Authority (and a nice bloke to boot). If you are able to track down a copy it makes for excellent relevant reading.

​​​​​​.. passenger seats in a C152 is zero

Perhaps one might first read CAR(1988) 2 "crew member" which includes "crew" before offering conjectural comment. Likewise for C172. The sensible interpretation is that we are referring to minimum crew rather than available crew positions/stations. On that basis, one's C152 can have 0/1 pax seats and the C172 2/3.

CAAP 235-2(2) is essential reading for the carriage of small children in aircraft. The CAAP is largely based on earlier AWBs.

[SBrommers]

Pretty clear from a quick glance at the CAO that an extra passenger was prohibited in this scenario ie the Tecnam has one pilot seat and one passenger seat.

Whats the point of the regs if we just pick and choose which ones to comply with?

If you read carefully CAO 20.16.3 chapter 13 you will find that no regulation was broken in carrying a child on a mothers lap. Or even allowing two children to occupy one seat. There may be something in the RAAus manuals about it, but no civil aviation law was broken.

[john_tullamarine]

Are you suggesting that you can rely on 13 to the exclusion of 12 ?

[Squawk7700]

As a matter of interest, you can put a child seat in a 150.

https://avfab.com/products/view/cessna-150-152-child-seat-auxillary/

[john_tullamarine]

A normal STC mod program such as we see with numerous Types/Models.

[SBrommers]

12 and 13 go hand in hand. 12 also mentions children may exceed the number of seats provided and just re-enforces the same point. It specifically says that 1 extra person than seats available may be carried if that person is a child. There is even a CASA rule making about it called "CASA ruling 2/2004". There is no doubt about what CASA says about it. The only question is what RAAus say about it and I think they say very little.

[john_tullamarine]

I am familiar with the ruling (which I note is advisory only).

The ruling says exactly what 12 says and is addressing the confusion potential where the AFM/POH specifies the maximum POB.

In particular, you are misreading and misquoting both the CAO and the ruling. Perhaps you might reread it a little more carefully this time and come back to us on the wordiology ?

I am only belabouring the point as the newbies are at risk of confusion and part of our brief is education.

Perhaps one of our legally competent readers might consider offering a comment on the CAO words as I am an engineer, not a lawyer.

[andrewr]

​​​​​The sensible interpretation is that we are referring to minimum crew rather than available crew positions/stations. On that basis, one's C152 can have 0/1 pax seats and the C172 2/3.

OK. When you said:
"While I don't know the original logic for the Order's requirement, I would speculate that it had to do with a potential for interference with, or obstruction of, a second set of controls?" I assumed you were saying the other front seat was not considered a passenger seat. However there doesn't appear to be a requirement that an infant be carried in the back of e.g. a 4 seater.

[SBrommers]

I think it is very clear.The number of passengers carried in an aircraft for which an emergency evacuation demonstration is not required may exceed the number of approved passenger seats fitted in the aircraft only if the excess number of passengers:

(a) has been approved by CASA; or
(b) does not exceed the number specified in column 2 of the following table opposite the number of passenger seats specified in column 1; and the excess passengers are infants or children:
Column 1 is number of seats (2-6), Column 2 is number of EXCESS passengers (1)
SO IF YOU HAVE 2 SEATS YOU CAN HAVE 1 EXCESS PASSENGER as long as that passenger is a child

[Stickshift3000]

Certainly CASA have drafted clear and concise aviation standards! :}

[john_tullamarine]

I think it is very clear.The number of passengers carried

Reference 12, let's drill down a little, shall we ?

Does the first column heading in the table refer to "seats", as you so strongly state ..... or, does it refer to "passenger seats" which is what the words in my copy say ?

OK. When you said:

Regarding the thoughts of the CAO drafters, I have no inside knowledge. The only things which make much sense to me are either, or both of, controls interference or aspects of emergency egress from the aircraft.

So far as seating is concerned, I was, for many years, a specialist authorised person under the Regs for seating design and certification. I don't know of any requirement which precludes the holding of an infant in the front seat of a light aircraft on single pilot private operations .... although, with the benefit of many pilot hours, I do think it a little silly.

[john_tullamarine]

At last we have agreement on the CAO words - hence my concern with a two place machine.

As I observed before, the main thing is no-one was hurt.

Years ago, in DCA days, the PIC would have received a talking to over coffee in the Regional Office and told not to do it again.

These days, the Regulator is driven by the big stick so, who knows what will be the outcome.

[visibility3miles]

Any landing you can walk away from is a good landing.

[First_Principal]

Not saying anything in substance that hasn't been said before here, however if we assume from the ABC article that:

(1) the child shown was carried on the a/c and is less than three years old
(2) the aircraft was not engaged in charter or public transport work

and for the sake of the discussion:

(3) the child was not being carried in a bassinet or infant seat
(4) the child was not sick, injured or disabled
(5) the a/c did not have dual controls, or the person occupying the passenger seats were suitably instructed not to interfere with controls etc
(6) the a/c is an Australian registered machine (not being familiar with '23-1600'?)

Without studying the wider body of legislation, here's a decision path showing relevant sections from current Civil Aviation Order 20.16.3 - Air service operations - Carriage of persons (02/12/2004):

s1 Application
- This section applies to all Australian registered aircraft. (if correct this applies, carry on to the next section)

s2 Definitions
...
- An infant is a passenger who has not reached his or her third birthday. (assumed, therefore applies - note BTW that 'Seats' are not defined here)
...

s3 Seats
...
- except:
(i) infants, children and stretcher cases carried in accordance with subsections 13 and 14 respectively; and... (an exception to s3, therefore -> s13. s14)
...

s4 Seat belts and safety harnesses

s4.1 ... shall be worn by all persons at the times listed in paragraph 3.1. ... (s3 -> s13 already precludes, but noted here for completeness)
...

s13 Carriage of infants and children (relevant section)

...
s3.2 (1) An infant may be carried in the arms or on the lap of an adult passenger, in a ... (note the comma)

s13.2 (2) When an infant is carried in the arms or on the lap of a passenger in accordance with subparagraph 13.2 (1) the seat belt, when required to be worn, shall be fastened around the passengers carrying or nursing the infant, but not around the infant. (there is no evidence this was not the case)
...
s13.2 (4) An infant must not be carried in an exit seat during take-off or landing unless the pilot in command is satisfied that the infant’s presence in the seat will not obstruct or hinder the escape of other persons from the aircraft.
...

Ipso facto, in the event the above is true opinio atrium legis de foris on this matter only is that there was was no offence committed per CAO 20.16.3 - not, of course, that a random observation from a rumour network carries any weight or deserves anything other than general derision :bored:

[mickjoebill]

My two feather-weight kids shared a seat in a commercial R44 joyflight in Australia around a popular tourist site,10 years ago.

I thought it was a sensible commercial proposition.

Given the diagonal sash belt is usually not positioned optimally for children, I concluded their was an acceptable, very minor reduction in safety by sharing the lap belt.

Mjb

[KRviator]

Damm, now your admitting to dropping something from an aircraft ??? Section 29.5 of the Civil Aviation Orders

Off we go againYou really are a flog, aren't you? Then again, I guess such a comment is to be expected from someone who was found by the NSW Coroner to have a "litany of dishonesty" and rulebreaking for your own pecuniary interests. Maybe that's why you can't understand the requirements for a legislative reference to your claims, you just go and do what you want anyway and to hell with the consequences...

One could be forgiven for doubting whether any maintenance or servicing was ever performed on the aircraft while owned by Coates. His record keeping was so appalling and to the extent that it existed at all, inaccurate, that we will never know. Very little if any of his two days oral evidence could be accepted other than his own admission as to his deceptive, or fraudulent dealings with RA Aus in relation to the registration of aircraft and use of unregistered aircraft, his ‘re-registering’ of an unregistered plane, his continued use of Czech registration in Australia in contravention of requirements, and his wrongful use of the serial number of an aircraft in Australia, on an aircraft in the USA. He compounded the litany of dishonesty by having prepared the Condition Report in August 2004 required for the sale to JG despite being prohibited from doing so by his pecuniary interest (i.e. ownership) of the aircraft on which the report was compiled, and further, without the qualification required to do so.

There is a strong likelihood that records which he did produce to the court were prepared for court production, and also that ‘Logs’ were not contemporaneous but may have been fictionally backdated to ensure a sale. He admitted that much of what was written by him in his Sting newsletters stretched the truth or were ‘sales puffery’ for marketing purposes.

<SNIP>

Similarly there were clear deficiencies in the Pilot Log Book and Aircraft Log Book completed by Mr Coates with respect to this aircraft. They failed to comply with the requirements for such records Source. (http://vocasupport.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Smith-and-Guthrie-Finding-Final.pdf)Now, moving on to toe substance of your post, having checked both CAO29.5 and the overarching regulation CAR150 prior to agreeing to not only doing it, but also spending a bucket load of time & $$ to design, build, install and flight-test an RV-9 specific cremains dispenser, I'm pretty confident I complied with the requirements. Of course, if you're alleging a breach of the CAR's or CAO29.5, I'm all ears.

Care to put such an allegation in writing here? Because as you can see, I freely admit to doing it...

[Squawk7700]

—————————————————

The CAO’s are irrelevant in this instance, because Raaus aircraft are not considered Australian Registered Aircraft, therefore the extra passenger is not permitted.

Refer to ops manual for passenger limits etc.

—————————————————-

[andrewr]

Refer to ops manual for passenger limits etc.

I did look for passenger limits in the ops manual, but only found seat limits. The most likely argument seems to be that CAO 20.16.3 doesn't apply to RAAUS, therefore section 13.2 which allows an infant to be carried on the lap does not apply and some other reg. that requires all passengers to occupy a seat and wear a seat belt/harness is the final word.

This whole idea of carrying a baby in your lap or having 2 children restrained by a single lap belt does seem to be very 1960s though (1950s maybe? Before my time anyway!)

[Squawk7700]

It is hard because there are references being used including:

- 2 place aeroplane
- 2 seat aeroplane
- 2 passengers
- Control seat
- Passenger seats

[KRviator]

The CAO’s are irrelevant in this instance, because Raaus aircraft are not considered Australian Registered Aircraft, therefore the extra passenger is not permitted.I keep seeing this written, but have yet to see a reference as to why people believe it to be the case, so I went digging futher...From what I can tell, there is no definition of "Australian Registered Aircraft" to be found in the CAA or CAR's, however, the following appear:

From CAR(2) using "Register" as a search term:
"foreign aircraft " means an aircraft registered:
(a) in a Contracting State or in a foreign country other than a Contracting State; or
(b) under a joint registration plan or an international registration plan.

"military aircraft " means aircraft of any part of the Defence Force (including any aircraft that is being constructed for any part of the Defence Force), other than any aircraft that is registered under these Regulations as an Australian aircraft.

"power-assisted sailplane " means an aircraft that The Gliding Federation of Australia Incorporated has registered as a power-assisted sailplane.

From CAA(3)
"aircraft" means any machine or craft that can derive support in the atmosphere from the reactions of the air, other than the reactions of the air against the earth's surface.

"Australian aircraft" means:
(a) aircraft registered in Australia; and
(b) aircraft in Australian territory, other than foreign registered aircraft and state aircraft.
Note: Some references to Australian aircraft may be affected by the operation of section 4A.

<My note: The "registered" above hyperlinks to the below definition>
From CAA(30DS)
"register" means the register kept under section 30EG.

From CAA(30EG)
CASA must maintain a demerit points register
(1) CASA must maintain a register that records details necessary for, or directly relevant to, the administration of this Division.
(2) CASA must, if it becomes aware of it, correct any mistake, error or omission in the register.
(3) The regulations may provide for other matters in relation to the keeping of the register.

My understanding of the above is RAAus aircraft are deemed "Australian Aircraft", however the definition of "Register" in the Civil Aviation Act refers to CAA930EG), which deals CASA's demerit points system only, as the "administration of this Division" in turn refers exclusively to "this division", or "Division 2" which handles AOC's. I have yet to come across another definition of "Register" in the CAA or CAR. Anyone else able to find one?

As an aside - how bloody ludicrous is it that we have to go to this level of detail to work out if an aircraft with numbers on its' side is actually an "Australian Registered Aircraft"...

[First_Principal]

—————————————————

The CAO’s are irrelevant in this instance, because Raaus aircraft are not considered Australian Registered Aircraft, therefore the extra passenger is not permitted.

—————————————————-

I've no desire to get into the finer points of Australian aviation law, however a little like the difference earlier noted between 'seats' and 'passengers' I point out that CAO 20.16.3 (s1) states it is applicable to "to all Australian registered aircraft".

This is not necessarily the same as "[only] all aircraft on the CASA Australian Civil Aircraft Register".

I see 23-1600 is on the RAAus as serial# 159. Serial# 159 may also have been registered as VH-OIP, but in any event it is clear that:

(1) The RAAus is an organisation domiciled in Australia
(2) The RAAus operates a public register of aircraft showing "registration status of an aircraft registered with Recreational Aviation Australia"
(3) 23-1600, s/n 159 may be found on that register

Thus, while acknowledging there may be specific legislation or orders that say otherwise (but in the absence of clear evidence to the contrary), I'd advise caution around an assumption that 23-1600 - or indeed any similar craft - isn't covered by CAO 20.16.3.

[megan]

RAAus documents here.

https://www.raa.asn.au/documents-and-forms/corporate-documents/

In a cursory look I'm unable to find any direct statement about the number of passengers that may be carried in a two seat aircraft, though they talk about "passenger" in the singular.

An example - NO PASSENGER IS TO BE FLOWN UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THE TECHNICAL MANAGER HAS ISSUED THE PERMIT TO FLY

Wonder if the required cockpit warning is a get out of jail card - WARNING PERSONS FLY IN THIS AIRCRAFT AT THEIR OWN RISK. THIS AIRCRAFT IS NOT OPERATED TO THE SAME SAFETY STANDARDS AS A NORMAL COMMERCIAL PASSENGER FLIGHT. CASA DOES NOT SET AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS FOR EXPERIMENTAL AIRCRAFT

[Squawk7700]

CASA do not consider Raaus aircraft to be Australian Registered and CAO 20.16.3 clearly says that it only applies to Australian Registered Aircraft.

A similar situation exists around using an Raaus aircraft for an CPL and ATPL. You can troll through the regs and you will not find a reference to the hours counting towards a a CPL and ATPL unless the aircraft is Australian Registered. Therefore, how are pilots using their Raaus hours towards their CPL and ATPL? Because there is a letter floating around from CASA that says that CASA will recognise 50% of the hours being flown in an aircraft on the Raaus register.

[Squawk7700]

Wonder if the required cockpit warning is a get out of jail card - WARNING PERSONS FLY IN THIS AIRCRAFT AT THEIR OWN RISK. THIS AIRCRAFT IS NOT OPERATED TO THE SAME SAFETY STANDARDS AS A NORMAL COMMERCIAL PASSENGER FLIGHT. CASA DOES NOT SET AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS FOR EXPERIMENTAL AIRCRAFT

That’s required for experimental aircraft in Raaus and GA, and yes, it’s a disclaimer for the purposes of liability.

[First_Principal]

A little further comment:

s7.2 of CASA AC 21-41(0) states "...LSA are Australian aircraft as defined under the Act...", which is essentially what KRviator quoted while I was typing earlier. Note the Civil Aviation Act 1988 is not the same as various regulations that may ensue from it.

Although it may not necessarily be the case here, in the event of things that are not defined in legislation the Courts will often refer to the meaning of a word from the Oxford English Dictionary. That august book states that a 'register' can be "An official list or record of names or items.".

Thus, even if it's not defined in your Act or CAR's etc, I suggest there's little doubt on what it means - from which I would take the RAAus records to be a register of Australian aircraft (for the purpose of CAO 20.16.3).

[First_Principal]

At the risk of further thread drift here I note that the New Zealand Civil Aviation Act (1990, and amendments) is a lot clearer on the matter of a register:

S2 Interpretation:

New Zealand Register of Aircraft means the register of that name that is established under section 73
New Zealand registered aircraft means any aircraft that is for the time being registered by the Director under section 6(1)(a)

I won't go on to replicate the various sections, I doubt it would add much to this discussion, but it's good to see some jurisdictions attempt to provide a reasonably comprehensive set of definitions...

[KRviator]

A similar situation exists around using an Raaus aircraft for an CPL and ATPL. You can troll through the regs and you will not find a reference to the hours counting towards a a CPL and ATPL unless the aircraft is Australian Registered. Therefore, how are pilots using their Raaus hours towards their CPL and ATPL? Because there is a letter floating around from CASA that says that CASA will recognise 50% of the hours being flown in an aircraft on the Raaus register.That may have been the case in days of old, but it is no longer current. From this document (https://www.casa.gov.au/sites/default/files/flight-crew-licensing-changing-training-provider.pdf):
Registered and recognised aircraft—if you are applying for a licence after completing an integrated training course, you must have logged the minimum flight times, specified in the regulations, in registered or recognised aircraft of the same category. For example, to obtain a CPL(A), you must have at least 140 hours of flight time in registered or recognised aeroplanes. Registered aircraft have a VH registration and recognised aircraft are either aircraft that are on the register of an ICAO Contracting State or a State aircraft. Aircraft registered with Recreational Aviation Australia (RAAus) are not VH registered aircraft.

Flight training in RAAus registered aircraft is not Part 141 or 142 flight training. Flight experience in RAAus registered aircraft can be used to meet the 200 hour CPL(A) requirement.[My bold. I (still) cannot find a reference as to "Australian Registered Aircraft" beyond what I've written above.

EDIT: Found probably the closest thing I can see thus far:
From CASR 202.900
"registered" , in relation to an Australian aircraft, means:
(a) in the case of an aircraft to which Division 47.C.1 applies--registered under Division 47.C.1; or
(b) in the case of an aircraft to which Division 47.C.2 applies--registered under Division 47.C.2.

Now those two provisions relate to RPA's and the CASA Civil Aircraft Register, that being the case, so far as the CASR's are concerned, an "Australian Registered Aircraft" would be one with VH- on the side, however per CASR 200.014, RAAus aircraft operating under CAO95.55 are exempt from the CASR's, and that definition.
From CASR 200.014
Certain ultralight aeroplanes
An aeroplane to which Civil Aviation Order 95.55, as in force from time to time, applies is exempt from CASR (other than the excluded provisions) if the conditions in that Order are satisfied.

And, because I know someone will ask...
"excluded provisions" means all of the following:
(a) Part 1;
(b) Subpart 11.G;
(c) Part 39;
(d) Part 99;
(e) Part 149;
(f) Part 200.

So per CASR200.014, RAAus aircraft operating under CAO95.55 are exempt from the CASR's, bar the few listed above, however, the definition of Australian Registered Aircraft found in CASR202 is not one of those excluded provisions, thus rendering ops under CAO95.55 exempt from that definition.

So....What is an "Australian Registered Aircraft" so far as a CAO is concerned? Fuctifino!

[Squawk7700]

Krviator, the link you posted clearly says that you can use RA type towards the higher classes but for the 200 hour route only.

› Flight training in RAAus registered aircraft is not Part 141 or 142 flight training. Flight experience in RAAus registered aircraft can be used to meet the 200 hour CPL(A) requireme

[Squawk7700]

It also says:


Registered aircraft have a VH registration and recognised aircraft are either aircraft that are on the register of
an ICAO Contracting State or a State aircraft. Aircraft registered with Recreational Aviation Australia (RAAus) are not VH registered aircraft.

[Squawk7700]

So....What is an "Australian Registered Aircraft" so far as a CAO is concerned? Fuctifino!

You didn’t look very hard because it’s written on the same page that you posted the link to.

An Australian Registered Aircraft has “VH” on the side.

[mcoates]

All this is confusing as hell, but it still doesn't get you around the fact that an LSA aircraft according to ASTM standards, can only have 2 persons on board. The rest of this is just diatribe.

[First_Principal]

... The rest of this is just diatribe.

Pedantry (excessive concern with minor details and rules) perhaps, but diatribe (a forceful and bitter verbal attack against someone or something), I think not...

[mcoates]

Pedantry (excessive concern with minor details and rules) perhaps, but diatribe (a forceful and bitter verbal attack against someone or something), I think not...


Damm, i was using voice recognition on the phone. I actually said "dribble" I don't even know the word Diatribe ?

[David J Pilkington]

... the fact that an LSA aircraft according to ASTM standards, can only have 2 persons on board.Looking through the ASTM standards referenced by CASA in AC21-42 for LSAs in Australia I don't see that requirement? All I see from CASA is "a maximum seating capacity of 2 persons" which has been discussed here.

[mcoates]

Well.... ASTM standards have references for compliance. they will refer you to FAA document 8130.2J which has the definition BUT it also refers you to other CAO or FAR's or whatever they are called now

[First_Principal]

A small point:

Parliament has the power to enact legislation within a sovereign country.

Typically it will do this via Acts, which themselves may give rise to regulations, which can define rules, and may make reference to various other national and international documentation.

It is not uncommon to say in enacting legislation that where there is conflict between another document and that Act, that the Act is the authoritative document. Likewise with regulations.

Now I've no time left to devote to this today, and have conducted nil research, but I suspect you'd find that if any ASTM documentation is referred to in any Australian legislation it will be in an advisory role, and in any case cannot (or at least should not) trump the right of Parliament to enact legislation within Australia. Thus CAO 20.16.3 probably remains the authoritative source on this matter.

Quite apart from that one would need to see the detail of any ASTM documentation to determine exactly what it says on this, and whether it is relevant to matter at hand.

[Squawk7700]

20.16.3 simply does not apply.

The link posted earlier effectively says that an Australian Registered Aircraft has a VH on the side.


https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/2000x948/d7fb2a82_1415_49ff_a411_a6111ec91749_b21ccfb9a6b2bdaf3168281 cc7ed1cdd6b3ddeed.jpeg

[Squawk7700]

https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/750x1334/04d24aa1_dde4_41dd_88ca_2e8ccebf074d_089b7bf55af0552cd63a0df d8b2fd70910023119.jpeg


https://www.casa.gov.au/sites/default/files/flight-crew-licensing-changing-training-provider.pdf

[KRviator]

You didn’t look very hard because it’s written on the same page that you posted the link to.

An Australian Registered Aircraft has “VH” on the side.UUmm, I actually quoted that specific line in my post above???:rolleyes:

Nonetheless, I wouldn't put too much faith in a CAsA document that does not include references. You'll also note from that document we've both linked to that it says:
Registered and recognised aircraft—if you are applying for a licence after completing an integrated training course, you must have logged the minimum flight times, specified in the regulations, in registered or recognised aircraft of the same category. For example, to obtain a CPL(A), you must have at least 140 hours of flight time in registered or recognised aeroplanes. Registered aircraft have a VH registration and recognised aircraft are either aircraft that are on the register of an ICAO Contracting State or a State aircraft.And when you look at those two definitions in CAA(3)you get:
"state aircraft" means:
(a) aircraft of any part of the Defence Force (including any aircraft that is commanded by a member of that Force in the course of duties as such a member); and
(b) aircraft used in the military, customs or police services of a foreign country.

"Contracting State" means a foreign country that is a party to the Chicago Convention.

So, if RAAus is not a State Aircraft and it certainly isn't registered in a foreign country, how is it that that document says you can claim your hours in RAAus, as they're "Recognised Aircraft"?:=

[Head..er..wind]

Damm, i was using voice recognition on the phone. I actually said "dribble" I don't even know the word Diatribe ?

Michael, we’re still waiting for you to provide the written facts (the regulations, not someone’s opinion). The biggest dribble so far comes from you.

[nomeowsonguard]

Clicked on this thread to read an interesting story about a forced landing on a beach. Instead it's descended (no pun intended) into a classic Australian fight to see what rules were broken. I love this country, but my word, the constant instinct to catch each other out over breaking the rules just depresses me. I fear Covid has only made the situation worse. God forbid I ever have an incident in aviation, I fear surviving almost as much as not making it, if all that awaits me is an army of scrutinising know-alls playing lawyer. I am constantly amazed how we advertise ourselves to the world as these laid back "take it easy mate" characters, yet do our best to legislate any fun and common sense out of every aspect of our lives. Glad to hear of happy outcome in this case.

[Ia8825]

Michael, we’re still waiting for you to provide the written facts (the regulations, not someone’s opinion). The biggest dribble so far comes from you.

Precedence would indicate he is a person of little integrity, so I wouldn’t hold my breath. And even if he does provide it I would frankly have serious doubts about its legitimacy

[IFEZ]

I was thinking the same thing nomeowsonguar..! A guy and his wife (and baby) are flying along, have engine trouble, put it down safely on a beach and all walk away unharmed. A good effort for which he should be congratulated.
Who gives a stuff about all the nonsense being proffered regarding numbers on board. This has nothing to do with what caused the engine to fail. I'm more interested in what caused that. Or maybe the child was fiddling with the mixture control when daddy wasn't looking..? :E

[Squawk7700]

Originally Posted by CASA
Registered and recognised aircraft—if you are applying for a licence after completing an integrated training course,

You keep quoting something that is not relevant.

You can not count Raaus hours towards an integrated 150 hour CPL course - it’s says that clearly.

You can only use them towards the 200 hour course in an agreement between CASA and Raaus.

Whilst this isn’t entirely relevant to the discussion, it does have a level of relevance because it demonstrates yet again that Raaus aircraft are not Australian registered aircraft, to the point that Raaus had to get CASA to accept to use the hours towards a CPL and ATPL for total aeronautical experience.

[Squawk7700]

Michael, we’re still waiting for you to provide the written facts (the regulations, not someone’s opinion). The biggest dribble so far comes from you.

The relevant regulations have already been posted, multiple times, including screen captures from the CASA website.

I also rang RAAus myself like Michael did and was advised that what I’ve been writing is correct in reference to the carriage of passengers, the registration of Raaus aircraft in terms of the discussion above and how the specific CAO referenced does not apply.

What will it take to make you believe… a letter from CASA with CASA letterhead, an email or a name?

Just because nothing specifically says that an Raaus aircraft is not recognised, doesn’t automatically make it recognised.

[Lead Balloon]

Clicked on this thread to read an interesting story about a forced landing on a beach. Instead it's descended (no pun intended) into a classic Australian fight to see what rules were broken. I love this country, but my word, the constant instinct to catch each other out over breaking the rules just depresses me. I fear Covid has only made the situation worse. God forbid I ever have an incident in aviation, I fear surviving almost as much as not making it, if all that awaits me is an army of scrutinising know-alls playing lawyer. I am constantly amazed how we advertise ourselves to the world as these laid back "take it easy mate" characters, yet do our best to legislate any fun and common sense out of every aspect of our lives. Glad to hear of happy outcome in this case.
Hear! Hear!

A successful forced or precautionary landing. (Not sure which, yet.) Well done the pilot.

Then pages of arguments and regulatory dross that only show what a complete waste of time and money the regulatory ‘reform’ program has been.

RAAus and CASA will have their opinions about whether a baby could lawfully be carried on the aircraft. The fact that they have to be asked or quoted in the first place demonstrates what a **** show the ‘rules’ are.

[Head..er..wind]

The relevant regulations have already been posted, multiple times, including screen captures from the CASA website.

I also rang RAAus myself like Michael did and was advised that what I’ve been writing is correct in reference to the carriage of passengers, the registration of Raaus aircraft in terms of the discussion above and how the specific CAO referenced does not apply.

What will it take to make you believe… a letter from CASA with CASA letterhead, an email or a name?

Just because nothing specifically says that an Raaus aircraft is not recognised, doesn’t automatically make it recognised.

If you read what I said it should be obvious what is required.......what the regulations say. So far I am merely waiting, as a few are, for Michael to provide the written regulations he keeps referring to. Would have thought that was pretty simple to do. If you recall he’s the one who has made claims that others, myself included, have asked for him to reference. Simple.

[Squawk7700]

Report from Raaus.


The aircraft took off from Bankstown for a private flight to the northern beaches. About 10 minutes before the incident, they started to fly up the coast, the fuel pressure started to fluctuate and drop and then would increase, the pilot turned the fuel pump on and changed the tank immediately. This did not change the fuel pressure reading, other than this there were no abnormalities. As the aircraft was climbing from 1000ft back to 2400ft to head back to Bankstown, approx. 20 seconds after full power the engine started to drop/ increase/ drop/ increase in RPM. The engine did not stop, but was not operating as normal. The pilot turned back EAST towards the coast and conducted a forced landing on the beach.

[josephfeatherweight]

The discussion in this thread is the reason we have the ridiculous legalese we have in this industry. We complain about it, but as evidenced by the vitriol and sputum within a thread like this, apparently we deserve it.

[Lead Balloon]

Report from Raaus.


The aircraft took off from Bankstown for a private flight to the northern beaches. About 10 minutes before the incident, they started to fly up the coast, the fuel pressure started to fluctuate and drop and then would increase, the pilot turned the fuel pump on and changed the tank immediately. This did not change the fuel pressure reading, other than this there were no abnormalities. As the aircraft was climbing from 1000ft back to 2400ft to head back to Bankstown, approx. 20 seconds after full power the engine started to drop/ increase/ drop/ increase in RPM. The engine did not stop, but was not operating as normal. The pilot turned back EAST towards the coast and conducted a forced landing on the beach.Sounds “precautionary” rather than “forced” to me, but who’d know and maybe the difference may not be understood these days.

[sagesau]

When all of this is wound up, the pilot will have either been slapped around for having an adult and child on board as well as himself or wandered off without a problem. If it turns out that the current regs actually allow this but they shouldn't, they'll be changed. If they don't allow it his first born will be handed over to the CASA gods.
At least they are all alive to have the argument.
Simples!

[Pinky the pilot]

Clicked on this thread to read an interesting story about a forced landing on a beach. Instead it's descended (no pun intended) into a classic Australian fight to see what rules were broken. I love this country, but my word, the constant instinct to catch each other out over breaking the rules just depresses me. I fear Covid has only made the situation worse. God forbid I ever have an incident in aviation, I fear surviving almost as much as not making it, if all that awaits me is an army of scrutinising know-alls playing lawyer. I am constantly amazed how we advertise ourselves to the world as these laid back "take it easy mate" characters, yet do our best to legislate any fun and common sense out of every aspect of our lives. Glad to hear of happy outcome in this case.


Wot Leady said in post #111. I really despair at the seemingly now obligatory practice of criticising each and every action taken by some Pilot who finds him/herself in an unfortunate situation.:ugh:

And sagesau says it best.
At least they are all alive to have the argument.
Simples!
IMHO, the most important thing of the whole episode.

Really think this thread has run its course, M'self.

[Ndegi]

Good judgement was shown by the pilot in turning back to the beach instead of pushing on over the city to reach Bankstown. Good airmanship skills were demonstrated in a near perfect approach and touch down. There will be a few armchair critics who could not have pulled off that landing. How many of us have practiced a forced or precautionary landing in the last six months, especially if we are flying multiple types with different glide characteristics. There was probably more damage done to the gear legs dragging the aircraft through the soft sand than from the actual landing.

Again well done the pilot and I agree with Pinky, time to give the thread a rest until there is an official comment of the cause of the engine surging, which is of greater interest than the current thread drift.

[Foxxster]

I was thinking the same thing nomeowsonguar..! A guy and his wife (and baby) are flying along, have engine trouble, put it down safely on a beach and all walk away unharmed. A good effort for which he should be congratulated.
Who gives a stuff about all the nonsense being proffered regarding numbers on board. This has nothing to do with what caused the engine to fail. I'm more interested in what caused that. Or maybe the child was fiddling with the mixture control when daddy wasn't looking..? :E

I think what happened was whilst refueling, his wife was filling the baby bottle upwind. Clearly some of the powdered baby formula has been blown into the fuel tank and subsequently blocked the fuel filter. Sputter sputter..

[Squawk7700]

I think what happened was whilst refueling, his wife was filling the baby bottle upwind. Clearly some of the powdered baby formula has been blown into the fuel tank and subsequently blocked the fuel filter. Sputter sputter..

Without wanting to be disrespectful, maybe the issue was caused by the natural milk delivery system, the way nature intended.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

A little more 'dribble' (or drivel...)

Lets say that 'ole mates' wife is pregnant, and they decide to go flying....for whatever reason....just the two (2) of them.....nice sunny day and all..... (You may be able to guess where this is going....)
in his 'RA rego aircraft'.....then, lo and behold, he does a 'steep turn' or whatever, and she says
'Guess wot'? and gives birth there and then.

Now there are three (3) POB in said 'RA rego aircraft'.....

Has a CRIME been committed???

Troo story - I had a mate in the Pilbara who TWICE has had a birth on board in a '210' - from 'Camp 72 Mile to Dampier, as it was at the time.
Two (2) separate occasions, about 6 weeks apart it was!.
Did he exceed the 'law' by not having the correct restraints - apart from not lodging a 'corrected' POB en route..........
There was a nurse on board just in case.....and she WAS REQ'D.

[Lead Balloon]

Definitely crimes, ExFG.

Without the approval/exemption/permission/certification/blessing/nod-and-a-wink of the regulator, everything is a crime.

As it should be! This is about safety.

[Pinky the pilot]

Without the approval/exemption/permission/certification/blessing/nod-and-a-wink of the regulator, everything is a crime.

As it should be! This is about safety.

Definitely agree, Leady! And the offending Pilot in this case should be taken out and shot at Dawn every day for the next six weeks!

(Assuming that is, that Dawn agrees. She might not, Y'know!:=)

[Squawk7700]

Giving birth in a 2 seat Raa aircraft is a strict liability offence punishable by 5 penalty units. Paging Sunfish.

I can’t believe this thread has hit so many pages and nobody has mentioned ADSB.

[Pinky the pilot]

I can’t believe this thread has hit so many pages and nobody has mentioned ADSB.

Well, you just did!:D

[Chronic Snoozer]

Giving birth in a 2 seat Raa aircraft is a strict liability offence punishable by 5 penalty units. Paging Sunfish.

I can’t believe this thread has hit so many pages and nobody has mentioned ADSB.

ADSB? Is that the Australian Definition of Seating a Baby?

[gerry111]

Definitely agree, Leady! And the offending Pilot in this case should be taken out and shot at Dawn every day for the next six weeks!

(Assuming that is, that Dawn agrees. She might not, Y'know!:=)

Wasn't Colonel Klink threatened with being shot AND sent to the Russian front, Pinky?

(Apologies for thread drift.)