ATPL Air Law Question.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: south pacific vagrant
Posts: 1,334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Like what?
Aircraft need serviceable equipment installed as per the relevant Rule Parts (or CAO's etc) for the intended operation unless relief is granted to depart with out said equipment as provided for in a Dispatch Deviation Guide (DDG) or Minimum Equipment List (MEL) or Configuration Deviation List (CDL) that is written by the aircraft manufacturer and approved by the regulator.
Aircraft need serviceable equipment installed as per the relevant Rule Parts (or CAO's etc) for the intended operation unless relief is granted to depart with out said equipment as provided for in a Dispatch Deviation Guide (DDG) or Minimum Equipment List (MEL) or Configuration Deviation List (CDL) that is written by the aircraft manufacturer and approved by the regulator.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: north of nowhere
Age: 34
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would think NO.
Considering a MAJOR defect is defined in CARs para 51A as could cause: primary structural failure, control system failure, engine structural failure or could cause fire in an aircraft...dont think there would be too many Major defects that could still permit the flight to go ahead. Pretty certain that I would not be flying the plane.
Considering a MAJOR defect is defined in CARs para 51A as could cause: primary structural failure, control system failure, engine structural failure or could cause fire in an aircraft...dont think there would be too many Major defects that could still permit the flight to go ahead. Pretty certain that I would not be flying the plane.
According to CAR 37
Note
37 Permissible unserviceabilities
(1) CASA may, for the purposes of these regulations, approve a
defect in, or damage to, an Australian aircraft, or any aircraft
included in a class of aircraft, as a permissible unserviceability
in relation to the aircraft or to Australian aircraft included in
the class of aircraft, as the case may be.
(2) CASA may, for the purpose of ensuring the safety of air
navigation, direct that the use of an Australian aircraft with a
permissible unserviceability is subject to such conditions as are
set out in the direction.
(2A) A person must comply with a condition set out in a direction.
Penalty: 50 penalty units.
(2B) An offence against subregulation (2A) is an offence of strict
liability.
(1) CASA may, for the purposes of these regulations, approve a
defect in, or damage to, an Australian aircraft, or any aircraft
included in a class of aircraft, as a permissible unserviceability
in relation to the aircraft or to Australian aircraft included in
the class of aircraft, as the case may be.
(2) CASA may, for the purpose of ensuring the safety of air
navigation, direct that the use of an Australian aircraft with a
permissible unserviceability is subject to such conditions as are
set out in the direction.
(2A) A person must comply with a condition set out in a direction.
Penalty: 50 penalty units.
(2B) An offence against subregulation (2A) is an offence of strict
liability.
Note
For strict liability, see section 6.1 of the Criminal Code.
Seems to me that If CASA has issued a PUS for the defect then you could fly the aircraft.
The issue of a PUS is specific to a particular aircraft and defect. Do not confuse this with an MEL or CDL.
If the defect was really a major defect then I think it unlikely that CASA would issue a PUS except under certain circumstances. eg perhaps for an retractable undercarriage defect and then they would apply certain requirements to the PUS. Typically things like essential crew only, day VFR only, engineer to inspect and secure the U/C down etc.
Their concept would be one of equivalent safety I think.
(3) A direction given under subregulation (2) does not have effect
in relation to a person until it has been served on the person.Seems to me that If CASA has issued a PUS for the defect then you could fly the aircraft.
The issue of a PUS is specific to a particular aircraft and defect. Do not confuse this with an MEL or CDL.
If the defect was really a major defect then I think it unlikely that CASA would issue a PUS except under certain circumstances. eg perhaps for an retractable undercarriage defect and then they would apply certain requirements to the PUS. Typically things like essential crew only, day VFR only, engineer to inspect and secure the U/C down etc.
Their concept would be one of equivalent safety I think.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Aust
Posts: 378
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So basically YES, you can fly an A/C with a MAJOR DEFECT if it were a PUS. (Not that you would of course!)
I am not advocating flying U/S aircraft, but if a PUS has been issued, you would want a good argument as to why you would not take it (within any conditions set out in the PUS).
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Aust
Posts: 378
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry, for the original Question.
help me jebus, I would of picked this one
.
But dont go looking in the CAO's to declare it a PUS yourself. It must be issued by CASA (not just a company engineer) and the peice of paper must be in the aircraft.
help me jebus, I would of picked this one
"YES" if it is a permissible unserviceability
But dont go looking in the CAO's to declare it a PUS yourself. It must be issued by CASA (not just a company engineer) and the peice of paper must be in the aircraft.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wherever the work is!
Posts: 157
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I dont believe I have seen anything in a Permissible Unserviceability list that would endanger a flight, hence it is a "Permissible Unserviceability", however some items may preclude certain operations from being undertaken legally.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: north of nowhere
Age: 34
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The original question was "Can a MAJOR DEFECT be considered a permissible unserviceability"
I would still think NO was the right answer. But if you are asking then you more than likely got it wrong after answering NO...
Good luck getting CASA to approve something that could cause: primary structural failure, control system failure, engine structural failure or could cause fire in an aircraft as a PUS.
I would still think NO was the right answer. But if you are asking then you more than likely got it wrong after answering NO...
Good luck getting CASA to approve something that could cause: primary structural failure, control system failure, engine structural failure or could cause fire in an aircraft as a PUS.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: ˙ǝqɐq ǝɯ ʇ,uıɐ ʇɐɥʇ 'sɔıʇɐqoɹǝɐ ɹoɟ uʍop ǝpısdn ǝɯɐu ɹıǝɥʇ ʇnd ǝɯos
Age: 45
Posts: 715
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps ferrying of an aircraft with one engine U/S would fall into this category. There's certainly room for it in the Regs and Orders and I daresay that a dead donk is a major defect.
CAO 29.8
FRQ CB
PS I and CAO obviously not referring to one of two engines being U/S.
CAO 29.8
PERMISSIBLE UNSERVICEABILITY
1.1 Subject to this section, a defect set out in the following table in relation to the class of aircraft specified opposite the defect is approved as a permissible unserviceability:
[TABLE]
Defect Class of aircraft
1*1 engine inoperative 4 engined aeroplane
2*1 engine inoperative 3 engined aeroplane
1.1 Subject to this section, a defect set out in the following table in relation to the class of aircraft specified opposite the defect is approved as a permissible unserviceability:
[TABLE]
Defect Class of aircraft
1*1 engine inoperative 4 engined aeroplane
2*1 engine inoperative 3 engined aeroplane
PS I and CAO obviously not referring to one of two engines being U/S.
