Legal experts: CAO 20.18.10

[Virtually There]

CAO 20.18.10 states:

10.1 In the case of a charter or regular public transport aircraft, all instruments and equipment fitted to the aircraft must be serviceable before take-off, unless:

What is the definition of "charter aircraft"?

Does it mean "an aircraft conducting a charter operation"?

Does it mean "an aircraft in the charter category" (maintenance release)?

There is no definition in CAO 20.18 itself.

We have emailed CASA about this and the response aligns with the first interpretation (charter operation).

In practical terms, CAO 20.18.10.1 would preclude any aircraft in the charter category from conducting any operation (charter, airwork, private etc) if it has any unservicability (as defined under 20.18 and assuming the aircraft has no MEL and no prior CASA permission for the unservicability).

However, if interpreted another way, it means a charter category aircraft with an unservicability (autopilot, for example) could conduct any operation apart from charter (and obviously RPT) so long as it complies with the rest of 20.18 (VFR - Apendix I etc).

So what is the definition of "charter aircraft" and what do you base that definition on?

Thanks for any unambiguous response.

[Virtually There]

If you are wondering why I am asking this after the CASA response, it is because the response appears to contradict itself. We are awaiting a clarification from CASA, but as everyone knows, we could be waiting a long time . . .

[5-in-50]

Unfortunately I cannot state with any certainty the definition of 'charter aircraft'.

I do however believe the meaning is simply 'an aircraft engaged in a charter operation'.

Yes, unless an aircraft has an approved MEL, it is subject to the conditions outlined in 20.18 and cannot be used for charter unless ALL instruments, exluding passenger convenience items, are working. That's exactly how it reads.

I think this is another example of the industry outgrowing the regulations. What once was sufficient and appropriate, is now ambiguous and risking becoming irrelevant.

[Virtually There]

For some months after we asked CASA to clarify this, we were of the opinion that "charter aircraft" referred to "an aircraft engaged in a charter operation".

The answer we were given - with specific reference to 20.18.10.1 - did not define the term, but was along the lines of (direct quote):

If a Charter aircraft is being operated on a private VFR flight, and an instrument . . . was to become unserviceable (and) the instrument is not a requirement for VFR, the aircraft can fly VFR.

In this instance, "Charter aircraft" refers to a "charter category" aircraft conducting a private flight.

However, if the definition of "charter aircraft" in 20.18.10.1 means a "charter category aircraft", then clearly the above aircraft could not conduct the flight - it could not conduct any flight with an unservicable instrument or equpiment.

So on the one hand, CASA has defined "charter aircraft" as being in the "charter category", and yet it has told us we can still fly private etc despite 20.18.10.1 - although, if they really wanted to get technical, they could point out the fact that 20.18.10.1 states the aircraft cannot take off (which is different to already being in the air).

Until recently this was all hypothetical. However, we are now faced with a situation that has led us to start questioning what we were originally told.

[Virtually There]

20.18.3
Instrumentation for flight under Visual Flight Rules
RPT aeroplanes and large charter aeroplanes
3.1 An aeroplane engaged in:
(a) a regular public transport operation (RPT); or
(b) a charter operation that has maximum take-off weight exceeding 5 700 kg — a charter operation;

The only other reference to "charter aeroplanes" (as opposed to helis etc) defines them as "engaged in a charter operation".

Subsection 3 appears before Subsection 10 (with no other specific reference), and so it could be argued sets a precedent for any latter definition of the same term.


No wonder law pays more than airwork.

[yr right]

For it to be used in charter it must have the log book statement in charter then it must meet the requirements for it to be in charter in the maintenance system.

[yr right]

The aircraft must meet the higher catogory before flight. Meaning rpt is over charter which is over Aireral work etc. you may drop down a cat if only you have an EO an mel or a pus. Then the M/R must be endorsed in part 2 or to what else you may be using stating what the aircraft may be flown as or when. Example aircraft ferry flight between 30/09/14 to 10/10/14 day Vfr only most direct route to XYZ. Min crew permitted only. IAW pus ABC. Or as per say auto pilot U/S. Aircraft must be flown with two crew IAW MEL blah blah. Only execption to this is a mercy mission at which the aircraft is grounded at the end of the flight and has to be released by casa.

In other words it's a can of worms

[Virtually There]

Yeah, we've got all that.

My question is, with specific reference to 20.18.10, what does "charter aircraft" mean? What is it's legal definition, and what is the basis for that definition?

[evilducky]

Minor thread drift here, but anyone else having trouble getting access to CAOs through Comlaw? Getting 'An error has occured, please contact the system administrator' every time.

[Virtually There]

Yes, I've been getting that. Try the cached version through Google.

[thunderbird five]

Found after a 1.7 second word search of CAR Vol 1:

CAR 2 (6) (b)

(b) when an aircraft is being employed in charter operations, it
shall be classified as a charter aircraft;

[Virtually There]

Thank you. You're a better lawyer than I am (I'm obviously not a lawyer)!

This simply backs our argument that "charter aircraft" refers to an aircraft in charter operations and therefore, an aircraft in the charter category can continue to conduct airwork and private operations with an unservicability provided it complies with the rest of CAO20.18.

[yr right]

No it can't. It must have an EO pus or an mel for it to fly even if it's not operating in charter. The aircraft must be maintain to the highest standard on the lbs. It may operate in a lower cat with only if that is met.

[yr right]

If you wish to fly it then the lbs must be changed and taken out of charter cat and be re submitted to casa.

[Lumps]

If you wish to fly it then the lbs must be changed and taken out of charter cat and be re submitted to casa.

Really? wouldnt a simple endorsement in the MR suffice? It is then up to the PIC to comply with the MR. Most of the rules can be traced back to some sort of base in reality, but resubmitting logbook statements to casa seems to do nothing but hinder operations.

[thorn bird]

"but resubmitting logbook statements to casa seems and does nothing but hinder operations."

Isn't that the whole intent and purpose of the regulations??

[evilducky]

Yes, I've been getting that. Try the cached version through Google.

But if use the cached version I might not get up to date copies And at the rate things are changing at the moment...

Thanks though, didn't realize google cached that much stuff.

[Virtually There]

Originally Posted by yr right

No it can't. It must have an EO pus or an mel for it to fly even if it's not operating in charter. The aircraft must be maintain to the highest standard on the lbs. It may operate in a lower cat with only if that is met.

If you wish to fly it then the lbs must be changed and taken out of charter cat and be re submitted to casa.

Right now, CAO 20.18.10 is being used as justification to prevent the aircraft from flying. We've established that there is no legal basis for this.

However, you're now saying there are other regulations that prevent a charter category aircraft from flying with an unserviceability. Do you have a reference?

With the Comlaw site down, it makes it harder to search (I don't have physical copies of all the regs), so perhaps you could point me in the right direction.

Also, what happens if you are flying to the outback and an instrument or piece of equipment becomes unservicable?

What you are saying would make other CAO's redundant. To wit:

CAO 20.18.4
4.1A Subject to paragraphs 4.1B and 4.1C, an aeroplane engaged
(b) in charter operations;
must not be operated under the Instrument Flight Rules unless it is equipped with a serviceable automatic pilot approved by CASA that has the following capabilities:

4.1C If the automatic pilot fitted to an aeroplane engaged:
(a) in charter operations;
loses a capability referred to in paragraph 4.1A, the aeroplane may, if the pilot is satisfied that it is safe to do so, be operated under the Instrument Flight Rules by a single pilot at any time within the period of 3 days commencing on the day on which the automatic pilot loses the capability.

Why the provision for 3 days to fix the problem if what you state is correct and the logbooks have to be resubmitted right there and then?

[5-in-50]

If you're still having trouble accessing CommLaw, try viewing the documents via OzRunways.

Open OzRunways, tap the Documents icon and tap CAOs. It will download and open.

Ironically, I disagree with 'yrright'

[oldrotorhead]

Just to add to the controversy, I have personally had several discussions with CASA in the Tamworth Office in recent times over this very para (10.1) in CAO20.18, viz:
"10.1 In the case of a charter aircraft etc..... it carries, or is fitted with, under subregulation 207 (2) of CAR 1988, must be serviceable etc...."
The interpretation from Airworthiness in that office (which resulted in a directive to change the wording in an Ops Manual I had written and submitted to them) is that "all instruments and equipment" in fact, means only those instruments and equipment which CASA has directed be fitted to the aircraft in accordance with CAR 207(2). That would not necessarily, for example apply to a second VHF COM, NAV or GPS if it were fitted, or any other equipped not fitting the bill as being directed to be fitted under the CAR.
I must admit I'm still not totally convinced, but I am not a lawyer either. The inclusion of the reference to CAR 207 (2) in that particular para (10.1) is however a relatively recent change to the Order (Jan 2013 I believe).
Just sayin"....