RAAus with 3 POB?
Civil Aviation Order 20.16.3 (as amended)
1 Application
This section applies to all Australian registered aircraft.
1 Application
This section applies to all Australian registered aircraft.
Originally Posted by CAO 20.16.3
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:
Column 1 ....................................Column 2
No. of passenger seats ........ No. of excess passengers
2-6............................................................1
(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 ....................................Column 2
No. of passenger seats ........ No. of excess passengers
2-6............................................................1
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: ChCh NZ
Posts: 402
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is obviously another of those threads were we are all falling into one of two camps.
Once again we don't have the facts, or rights, to prejudge or really pass judgement. Indeed we are going from media reports for the best part so I doubt we are that well informed.
I am sure the public are seeing things differently than us. They will see another aircraft crash on the news, not a jumbo or A380 either.
The media feed the public and that in turn will affect the politicians.
Unfortunately for us all we know aircraft accidents will continue. Equally unfortunately they will be reported and if the media, the public, CASA or the politicians ever sense a link then obviously something is going to be said.
Some of here can see a link already, others may not have opened their eyes a little wider yet. Something has to give.
Surely a pre-emptive move has to be a good idea. Can RA Aus afford to send a letter out to all it's members, - and by that I mean those that have not paid up since 2004 also. They appear to be an administrative body. Posting a letter is an administrative action.
XXX posts are normally very good and informative. On this occasion he believes some of this is OTT.
That may be the case but we have not had a fatality from these chumps yet, is that what it takes ?
I read the North Qld coroners report the other night.
http://www.courts.qld.gov.au/__data/...h-20090127.pdf
Discussed in the other thread..
Yahoo! Groups
In all my years in aviation I have never seen or heard nonsense like that before.... I hope that carry-on is not endemic....
These recent incidents do have me wondering.
Given that the neighbour was reported as saying that this latest pilot was very experienced and flew often should be wondering what aircraft he was flying about in.
My experiences with GA are that the IA (senior LAME's) will forward a report whenever he has concerns about unrecorded maintenance or unlogged hours.
(More so when finite lived items are involved I admit).
Once again we don't have the facts, or rights, to prejudge or really pass judgement. Indeed we are going from media reports for the best part so I doubt we are that well informed.
I am sure the public are seeing things differently than us. They will see another aircraft crash on the news, not a jumbo or A380 either.
The media feed the public and that in turn will affect the politicians.
Unfortunately for us all we know aircraft accidents will continue. Equally unfortunately they will be reported and if the media, the public, CASA or the politicians ever sense a link then obviously something is going to be said.
Some of here can see a link already, others may not have opened their eyes a little wider yet. Something has to give.
Surely a pre-emptive move has to be a good idea. Can RA Aus afford to send a letter out to all it's members, - and by that I mean those that have not paid up since 2004 also. They appear to be an administrative body. Posting a letter is an administrative action.
XXX posts are normally very good and informative. On this occasion he believes some of this is OTT.
That may be the case but we have not had a fatality from these chumps yet, is that what it takes ?
I read the North Qld coroners report the other night.
http://www.courts.qld.gov.au/__data/...h-20090127.pdf
Discussed in the other thread..
Yahoo! Groups
In all my years in aviation I have never seen or heard nonsense like that before.... I hope that carry-on is not endemic....
These recent incidents do have me wondering.
Given that the neighbour was reported as saying that this latest pilot was very experienced and flew often should be wondering what aircraft he was flying about in.
My experiences with GA are that the IA (senior LAME's) will forward a report whenever he has concerns about unrecorded maintenance or unlogged hours.
(More so when finite lived items are involved I admit).
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Wentworth
Age: 59
Posts: 212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A few false alarms here Baron.
It appears the aircraft is registered, and the quoted RAA data may have been just a snapshot, not the current data.
No doubt about the stupidity of carrying three people.
So at present we are left with what might be an engine failure after take off.
It appears the aircraft is registered, and the quoted RAA data may have been just a snapshot, not the current data.
No doubt about the stupidity of carrying three people.
So at present we are left with what might be an engine failure after take off.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: ChCh NZ
Posts: 402
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I realise the aircraft appears to have been re-registered in August 2011. Even with the records one year out of date ?? then the period 2008 to 2011 is still showing as not registered.
I see several things;
The record keeping not terribly accurate, or at least the website side of it.
The three years unregistered. Maybe it was just parked up.
The neighbour reporting that the pilot flew regularly. Maybe he had access to another aircraft there.
The chap doing the inspection would have a fair idea of the history of the machine. What is the expectation of him if he believes the aircraft has flown whilst unregistered ?
The machine being registered now makes it an RAAus matter I believe. They will know if he was current etc.
I don't have a problem with two-seaters carrying 3 souls-on-board. I don't think the emergency exit CAO makes it anymore legal as such but it comes down to safety, as in the seating, restraints and controllability. Both flight controls and weight and balance. I accept aircraft like the C150 can be modified with a child seat.
I recall talking to the CAA about a helicopter that had only logged 6 hours in the previous year. After the subsequent crash the son was on TV saying what a saint his father was and how he was teaching him how to fly it. The son must have been a bloody quick learner, especially since his father had never been an instructor. Although the conversation never featured in any findings I am betting the staffer is still wondering what if..
You can rest assured that the investigators will be feeding from all the above.
This is where the engineers get unwillingly dragged into someone else's problem. Now the spotlight is on him also and he probably did the job for a pittance anyway.
I feel for the pilot and his family, they appear to be pretty beaten up. I can only imagine the circumstances of the flight... I am sure it seemed like a perfectly good idea at the time. This is probably more of a case of real bad luck than any form of negligence or stupidity.
Then again the outcome could have been a whole lot worse.
I see several things;
The record keeping not terribly accurate, or at least the website side of it.
The three years unregistered. Maybe it was just parked up.
The neighbour reporting that the pilot flew regularly. Maybe he had access to another aircraft there.
The chap doing the inspection would have a fair idea of the history of the machine. What is the expectation of him if he believes the aircraft has flown whilst unregistered ?
The machine being registered now makes it an RAAus matter I believe. They will know if he was current etc.
I don't have a problem with two-seaters carrying 3 souls-on-board. I don't think the emergency exit CAO makes it anymore legal as such but it comes down to safety, as in the seating, restraints and controllability. Both flight controls and weight and balance. I accept aircraft like the C150 can be modified with a child seat.
I recall talking to the CAA about a helicopter that had only logged 6 hours in the previous year. After the subsequent crash the son was on TV saying what a saint his father was and how he was teaching him how to fly it. The son must have been a bloody quick learner, especially since his father had never been an instructor. Although the conversation never featured in any findings I am betting the staffer is still wondering what if..
You can rest assured that the investigators will be feeding from all the above.
This is where the engineers get unwillingly dragged into someone else's problem. Now the spotlight is on him also and he probably did the job for a pittance anyway.
I feel for the pilot and his family, they appear to be pretty beaten up. I can only imagine the circumstances of the flight... I am sure it seemed like a perfectly good idea at the time. This is probably more of a case of real bad luck than any form of negligence or stupidity.
Then again the outcome could have been a whole lot worse.
