GFPT flight area restrictions.
A little more on the "it is a defence against prosecution" bit:
Have been reading up the CARs, CASRs (as you do when you need assistance to get to sleep), and the above crops up pretty regularly, as we all know.
Aerobatics, for instance, or acrobatic flight as they like to call it - the CAR reads you must do it above 3000' AGL or be prosecuted. It then goes on to say it's a defence against prosecution if you have written permission from CASA to do lower aeros.
I think it's pretty clear, then, how these clauses are meant to be interpreted - there's no way they're going to issue written permission for you to do low level aeros, wait for you to do them IAW that permission, and then take you to court over it only to find you have a great defence as per CAR88. (or would they? Stranger things have happened I guess...)
Anyhow, I read it as 'go ahead and authorise post GFPT students to carry pax IAW the restrictions and conditions in these orders'.
Have been reading up the CARs, CASRs (as you do when you need assistance to get to sleep), and the above crops up pretty regularly, as we all know.
Aerobatics, for instance, or acrobatic flight as they like to call it - the CAR reads you must do it above 3000' AGL or be prosecuted. It then goes on to say it's a defence against prosecution if you have written permission from CASA to do lower aeros.
I think it's pretty clear, then, how these clauses are meant to be interpreted - there's no way they're going to issue written permission for you to do low level aeros, wait for you to do them IAW that permission, and then take you to court over it only to find you have a great defence as per CAR88. (or would they? Stranger things have happened I guess...)
Anyhow, I read it as 'go ahead and authorise post GFPT students to carry pax IAW the restrictions and conditions in these orders'.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: -28.1494 / 151.943
Age: 68
Posts: 463
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And for those that are to lazy to google it (like me usually) ... 
6.1 Strict liability
(1) If a law that creates an offence provides that the offence is an offence of strict liability:
(a) there are no fault elements for any of the physical elements of the offence; and
(b) the defence of mistake of fact under section 9.2 is available.
(2) If a law that creates an offence provides that strict liability applies to a particular physical element of the offence:
(a) there are no fault elements for that physical element; and
(b) the defence of mistake of fact under section 9.2 is available in relation to that physical element.
(3) The existence of strict liability does not make any other defence unavailable.
6.1 Strict liability
(1) If a law that creates an offence provides that the offence is an offence of strict liability:
(a) there are no fault elements for any of the physical elements of the offence; and
(b) the defence of mistake of fact under section 9.2 is available.
(2) If a law that creates an offence provides that strict liability applies to a particular physical element of the offence:
(a) there are no fault elements for that physical element; and
(b) the defence of mistake of fact under section 9.2 is available in relation to that physical element.
(3) The existence of strict liability does not make any other defence unavailable.
Thanks for putting up that definition, Avgas. I still couldn't work out what it meant though! After a bit of googling I found a good article which cleared things up a fair bit.
As far as I can work out, the 'physical element' bit means, did the person do the thing they're accused of, eg low fly when they shouldn't have? That's a yes/no thing which needs to be proven.
The 'fault element' is, did they intend to, or recklessly or negligently do it? In an offence of strict liability, it doesn't really matter what their state of mind was, they did it, and that's enough to find them guilty.
However, if they were:
(a) forced to do it by something beyond their control, or
(b) they did everything a reasonable person would do under the circumstances but the holes in the swiss cheese lined up and the infringement happened anyway (eg faulty altimeter, featureless terrain which didn't give them a clue they were low flying at the time), that might get them off.
So - strict liability, doesn't matter if you meant to do it or not, you did it so you're in trouble. However, if it really wasn't your fault you might be OK.
As far as I can work out, the 'physical element' bit means, did the person do the thing they're accused of, eg low fly when they shouldn't have? That's a yes/no thing which needs to be proven.
The 'fault element' is, did they intend to, or recklessly or negligently do it? In an offence of strict liability, it doesn't really matter what their state of mind was, they did it, and that's enough to find them guilty.
However, if they were:
(a) forced to do it by something beyond their control, or
(b) they did everything a reasonable person would do under the circumstances but the holes in the swiss cheese lined up and the infringement happened anyway (eg faulty altimeter, featureless terrain which didn't give them a clue they were low flying at the time), that might get them off.
So - strict liability, doesn't matter if you meant to do it or not, you did it so you're in trouble. However, if it really wasn't your fault you might be OK.
