PPRuNe Forums


Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific Airline and RPT Rumours & News in Australia, enZed and the Pacific

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 13th Feb 2018, 10:25   #181 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: FNQ ... Still!
Posts: 2,889
There are some here that are holding on just a bit too tight!
Breathe.
Capt Fathom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th Feb 2018, 11:13   #182 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 8
Quote:
Originally Posted by swh View Post



Taking off overweight is an offence of strict liability, every element of a strict liability offence must be proven by the prosecutor, and proven beyond a reasonable doubt. With a valid load sheet and performance data you are covered because it is the approved “method of estimating” and “manner of determining”, if the load sheet that says you are overweight and sit on the ground to burn off contingency fuel you are not covered....

...


The important thing is knowing that a horizontal windsock is 15 kts and it is located just next to where you want to touch down. Knowing how ATC determines the mean wind is not important, it is important to understand that it is not realtime or at the touchdown point.
Wrong on 2 accounts.

Strict liability does not require proof of fault or carelessness by prosecutor. There is effectively no defence.

“Strict Liability
Absolute legal responsibility for an injury that can be imposed on the wrongdoer without proof of carelessness or fault.
Strict liability, sometimes called absolute liability, is the legal responsibility for damages, or injury, even if the person found strictly liable was not at fault or negligent”

Most windsocks are 25 knots, meaning if the windsock is straight in the majority of cases you,ve got significantly more than 15 knots. Granted there are 15 knot windsock in use but they are the exception rather than the rule.

And they generally don’t exist at the major city airports in Australia.
bigwatch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th Feb 2018, 11:52   #183 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigwatch View Post
Wrong on 2 accounts.

Strict liability does not require proof of fault or carelessness by prosecutor. There is effectively no defence.
The defence of mistake of fact would apply in the case
Source - some bloke called Jonathon Aleck
Cant post the URL but google "Strictly liable, fairly enforced" in FlightSafety
michigan j is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th Feb 2018, 11:56   #184 (permalink)
swh

Eidolon
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Some hole
Posts: 1,784
That is not my understanding,

13.1 Legal burden of proof—prosecution
(1) The prosecution bears a legal burden of proving every element of an offence relevant to the guilt of the person charged.
Note: See section 3.2 on what elements are relevant to a person’s guilt.
(2) The prosecution also bears a legal burden of disproving any matter in relation to which the defendant has discharged an evidential burden of proof imposed on the defendant.
(3) In this Code:
legal burden, in relation to a matter, means the burden of proving the existence of the matter.

As an example under CAR 235 it is up to the prosecution to prove the physical element, that you took off overweight and they have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

It is a reasonable defence to have accepted a loadsheet that says you are within limits, then to find after landing that there was a loading error and unknowingly had onboard an extra pallet making your 6 tonnes overweight. This is known as defence of reasonable mistake of fact.
swh is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 13th Feb 2018, 12:20   #185 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Here and there
Age: 6
Posts: 52
What was the topic? Oh the irony...
fringhtok is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th Feb 2018, 12:26   #186 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Oceanside, CA.
Posts: 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigwatch View Post
Most windsocks are 25 knots, meaning if the windsock is straight in the majority of cases you,ve got significantly more than 15 knots. Granted there are 15 knot windsock in use but they are the exception rather than the rule.
Excrement!

Quote:
ICAO and FAA Specifications for Wind Socks

The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) (AC 150/5345-27D) and the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) (Annex 14) provide three different wind sock height specifications as follows:

FAA type L-806 support - those mounted on low mass supporting structures - maximum of 10 ft (3.0 m) mast height
FAA type L-807 support - those mounted on rigid supporting structures - Maximum of 16 ft (4.8 m) height to wind sock
ICAO/CAA standard - 20 ft (6.0 m) mast height
FAA and ICAO standards for wind sock sizes are as follows

FAA, Size 1 - Eight feet (2.5 m) in length and 18 inches (0.45 m) throat diameter at large end
FAA, Size 2 - Twelve feet (3.60 m) in length and 36 inches (0.9 m) throat diameter at large end
ICAO/CAA standard - Twelve feet (3.60 m) in length and 36 inches (0.9 m) throat diameter at large end
The taper of the fabric wind sock from the throat to the trailing end must be designed to cause the wind sock to fully extend when exposed to a wind of 15 knots (28 km/hr or 17 mph). FAA Advisory Circular 150/5345-27D also provides specifications for externally lighted, internally lighted, and unlighted wind socks.
I put the above in quotes because I got it from an Oztranaut.
Bonway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th Feb 2018, 13:06   #187 (permalink)
TWT
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: troposphere
Posts: 613
What is the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow ?


Must be someone here among all these experts that knows
TWT is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 13th Feb 2018, 13:21   #188 (permalink)
swh

Eidolon
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Some hole
Posts: 1,784
Quote:
Originally Posted by TWT View Post
What is the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow ?
Must be someone here among all these experts that knows
I think a few mates might be able to conduct some research on unladen and then laden swallows in Asia and report back.
swh is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 13th Feb 2018, 14:48   #189 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 8
I stand corrected with regards to the windsock. You are correct in the FAA standard regarding the 15 knots. The Australian MOS does not specify a wind strength, rather it now specifies the dimensions of the windsock and a fabric type that is suitable. It used to be that windsocks were 15 or 25 knots depending on the fabric used.

In terms of the strict liability law, if you took off with the GW indicting over the MTOW of the aircraft, you would be guilty. I do not believe the ‘reasonable mistake of fact’ defence would not cut it in those circumstances.

This whole thread regarding ‘oztranauts’ is enlightening about the standards to which we hold ourselves, and also judge others by - I had a major carrier in Oz report visual a few years ago to approach going into Melbourne. The controller then gave him as traffic to me and told me to maintain my own separation. I replied that would be hard as he was going in and out of cloud ro which the approach controller then applied positive control to us both The problem here was that the other pilot had put the separation of us both at risk by not applying the rules properly.

There are times when breaking the rules are acceptable, but it is not to try and take off 200kgs overweight according to a GW indicator, nor to accept a landing a few knots outside the certified limits of an aircaft’s limits, particularly when there are other options. Being safe, being legal and being practical may not always give you the same outcome, but there is always a right choice.
bigwatch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th Feb 2018, 14:57   #190 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Surrounding the localizer
Posts: 2,180
haughtney1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th Feb 2018, 16:43   #191 (permalink)
swh

Eidolon
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Some hole
Posts: 1,784
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigwatch View Post
In terms of the strict liability law, if you took off with the GW indicting over the MTOW of the aircraft, you would be guilty. I do not believe the ‘reasonable mistake of fact’ defence would not cut it in those circumstances.

There are times when breaking the rules are acceptable, but it is not to try and take off 200kgs overweight according to a GW indicator, nor to accept a landing a few knots outside the certified limits of an aircaft’s limits, particularly when there are other options. Being safe, being legal and being practical may not always give you the same outcome, but there is always a right choice.
If you were to google “atsb loading related event” you will see a whole series of events where aircraft have departed with incorrect loads that were only picked up later. The most recent I am aware of was in December with an A330 operating SYD-PEK that took off around 500 kg over MTOW. Nothing will happen to the crew as they were of the reasonable belief the aircraft was loaded correctly around 900 kg lighter.

I am not one for breaking rules, real rules, not ones that have been made up. There is no rule that says an aircraft must have the weight displayed in real time in the cockpit, let alone wait for that value to drop to a magic number before takeoff, or an aircraft cannot commence an approach if the reported tower wind exceeds the tailwind limit.

We have all flown with people with different personal standards that they apply above the regulatory minimum, what this thread in essence is about is people who project their personal standards onto others and pass them off are being the rule when in fact they are just another persons opinion.
swh is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 13th Feb 2018, 21:30   #192 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Oceanside, CA.
Posts: 153
So, perhaps we can wrap this up with a conclusion. The reputation of Ozzie pilots is clearly that they are a bunch of self-centered wars nobody wants to fly with, they have a firm grasp of the non-essentials and no idea of situational awareness, and they can't even decide amongst one another how a windsock works. Great conversation. Thanks.
Bonway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th Feb 2018, 23:26   #193 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Hollywood
Posts: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigwatch View Post
I stand corrected with regards to the windsock. You are correct in the FAA standard regarding the 15 knots. The Australian MOS does not specify a wind strength, rather it now specifies the dimensions of the windsock and a fabric type that is suitable. It used to be that windsocks were 15 or 25 knots depending on the fabric used.
Don't worry about it. No one outside of Aus really cares. Only you Austronauts care about the size and fabric of a windsock LOL
Hollywood1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th Feb 2018, 23:31   #194 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: The Ponderosa
Age: 45
Posts: 740
Wrap it up! We’ve only just got started, what about the sub groups? The Qaustronauts, Voztronauts, Cobsonauts....
hoss is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th Feb 2018, 23:44   #195 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: W1
Posts: 71
I think the administrators should change the website name to Prune. Nothing professional in the dribble on this thread.
Nunc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th Feb 2018, 00:13   #196 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: orlando
Posts: 10
Trouble with the Australian's I've had to fly with is, they seem to want to reinvent the wheel. It's all been down before by proper pilots decades ago. Tried to tell them, if it ain't broken then don't fix it. Keep it simple! Complicate thinks and people screw up. KIS!!!
John_Reid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th Feb 2018, 00:59   #197 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: N/A
Posts: 1,963
Quote:
Complicate thinks and people screw up
Not sure if that's a Freudian slip or a sophisticated play on words.
megan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th Feb 2018, 03:52   #198 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by John_Reid View Post
Trouble with the Australian's I've had to fly with is, they seem to want to reinvent the wheel. It's all been down before by proper pilots decades ago. Tried to tell them, if it ain't broken then don't fix it. Keep it simple! Complicate thinks and people screw up. KIS!!!
The mob I work for need the last two sentences of your post framed and put in the chief pilots office.
jetlikespeeds is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 14th Feb 2018, 13:03   #199 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 684
Quote:
Originally Posted by jetlikespeeds View Post
The mob I work for need the last two sentences of your post framed and put in the chief pilots office.
Exactly, it ain’t the pilots who started this...
Derfred is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th Feb 2018, 13:43   #200 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: orlando
Posts: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by megan View Post
Not sure if that's a Freudian slip or a sophisticated play on words.
Sorry, typo = screw up. Big hands, big fingers. Too big for the phone key board. Sophisticated? No I'm simple, hence KIS.
John_Reid is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT. The time now is 13:09.


© 1996-2012 The Professional Pilots Rumour Network

SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1