Legal experts: CAO 20.18.10

[Virtually There]

207(2) still refers to "class of operations" and not "category of aircraft".

We're basically talking about an aircraft in the charter category conducting almost exclusively private and airwork operations (don't ask why it's still maintained in the charter category - that's another issue).

If a piece of equipment fails - and it could literally be something as simple as a light bulb, according to 20.18.10 - then without an MEL (permissible unservicability being a function of the MEL) or executive order, the aircraft could not fly charter operations.

But it can still fly private and airwork ops. And while the aircraft still needs to be maintained to the charter standard, surely that comes under the maintenance schedule and does not apply to actual operations (assuming the unservicability has been entered in the MR)?

Simply put, our interpretation is that if an aircraft is in the charter category, it must be maintained to the charter category standards and - if it is to conduct a charter flight - it must conform to the charter category for that operation, but not for any lesser operation.

CAO 20.18.10.2 also clearly states:

Where flight is conducted with unserviceable instruments or equipment under the provisions of paragraph 10.1 or 10.1A, the unserviceable instruments or equipment shall be prominently placarded ‘UNSERVICEABLE’ or removed from the aircraft.

So the CAO is stating that a flight IS permissible under 10.1 or 10.1A as long as the unservicable equipment or instrument is placarded.

Again, if there is another regulation that turns this on its head, I would like to see it. I've looked everywhere - though admittedly I might be looking in the wrong places.

If yr right can point me in the direction of any reg that backs up what he is saying, then that would be very helpful.

[Creampuff]

Don't worry: All of this will be made clear in the new 1998 regulations. When they come in, there will be no need for CAOs.

Until then....

I think your interpretation is correct.

The key provision that gives you your definition of e.g. "charter aircraft" is regulation 2(6) of the CARs 1988:

(6) For the purposes of these Regulations, an aircraft shall be classified in accordance with the type of operations in which it is being employed at any time, as follows:

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

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

(c) when an aircraft is being employed in regular public transport operations, it shall be classified as a regular public transport aircraft;

(d) when an aircraft is being employed in private operations, it shall be classified as a private aircraft.

I can't be bothered looking up the reg linking the defined terms in the regs to the Orders.

[Virtually There]

Thanks for that. It's in Vol 2 Part 5:

5 Civil Aviation Orders
(2) Expressions used in Civil Aviation Orders shall, unless the contrary intention appears, have the same meanings as in these regulations.

[Creampuff]

You're welcome.

[yr right]

Your confusion is that your trying to place flying ops with maintenance. You can't do this. When anything is placed on the M/R it has to be done IAW. Iaw an EO an mel a pus. If you can't do it IAW you can't do it. The lbs states what the aircraft is maintaimed to. If your
Flying a charter aircraft in private it's still maintained to charter. You just can not add anything to the M/R with out it being IAW.

The lbs states the standard of maintence. Flying ops dose NOT set the maintence. As I've said maintence is set to the highesr standard the aircraft is flying to.

[Virtually There]

Originally Posted by 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'

Sorry mate, I don't have OzRunways and the CommLaw site has been down as long as I've been trying to research this. I don't have hard copies and the cached versions all have dead links, making it hard.

[yr right]

So 5 in 50 just as a matter of interest how many M/R have you issued. How many pus have you done. How many times have you invoked a MEL. Just as a matter of interest ?

[Virtually There]

Originally Posted by "yr right'

Your confusion is that your trying to place flying ops with maintenance. You can't do this. When anything is placed on the M/R it has to be done IAW. Iaw an EO an mel a pus. If you can't do it IAW you can't do it.

This is where I'm a little confused: surely IAW means "in accordance with all regulations", not just the maintenance schedule?

Which is why I asked the question: if a non-essential piece of equipment for a private VFR flight fails away from home (a light bulb, for example), and you can still conduct the flight according to 20.18.10.2, and the aircraft happens to be in the charter category, then does that mean a mercy flight has to be declared to get home? Because that doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

What would you do?

[yr right]

No a mercy mission can only be used in extreme emergency. Where a person or persons have a risk to life.

No flying ops are different. The lbs holds all the requirements for maintenance that is required on that aircraft. The lbs holds how what when maintenance is required.

Anything down to washing your aircraft can be considered maintenance. If you look at your M/R it will tell you what your maintence schedule is. This you can only change by changing your lbs.

[5-in-50]

So 5 in 50 just as a matter of interest how many M/R have you issued. How many pus have you done. How many times have you invoked a MEL. Just as a matter of interest ?

I'd like to avoid thread drift, but since you're interested the answer is none. Regardless, I have an opinion based on my personal interpretation and what I see the masses doing in the industry on a daily basis. So I (quite respectfully) disagree with your interpretation.

[Creampuff]

An unserviceability in an aircraft may be 'legal' when the aircraft is employed in private operations but not 'legal' if the same aircraft is employed in another classification of operations.

If your question, VT, is whether you can conduct a charter flight in aircraft X from A to B and, having suffered an unserviceability in an instrument or piece of equipment required for a charter flight, you're allowed to conduct a private flight in aircraft X from B to somewhere else, the answer is: Yes, subject to some provisos.

The provisos are that:

- the instrument or piece of equipment must not be required to be serviceable to employ the aircraft in a private flight

- the unserviceability must be recorded in the maintenance release or approved alternative for the aircraft,

- the instrument or piece of equipment must be placarded unserviceable, and

- most importantly, the flight must be in the private category.

[I]f a non-essential piece of equipment for a private VFR flight fails away from home (a light bulb, for example), and you can still conduct the flight according to 20.18.10.2, and the aircraft happens to be in the charter category, then does that mean a mercy flight has to be declared to get home?

No, provided:

- the unserviceability of the bulb is recorded in the maintenance release or approved alternative for the aircraft,

- the instrument or equipment is placarded unserviceable (if it's just a bulb, it might just be "Landing light not working" sticker under the landing light switch), and

- most importantly, the flight home must not be a charter pretending to be private.

[thorn bird]

What I find completely bizarre is this debate is occurring over what a regulation means.

Having plowed through our part 61 a few times and still completely in the dark as to what they mean or intend
should it not be an imperative for Guv mint regulators to write regulations that are unambiguous, so us poor members of the great unwashed class can decipher what they mean and therefore comply with them, rather than us taking a guess, thus generating massive income for bottom feeding lawyers ( Creamie excepted of course)

Wouldn't it be wonderful if we as an industry could bring a class action against CAsA for deliberately writing indecipherable regulations, with malice and aforethought to trap the unsuspecting into breaches attracting massive penalties ( figure I owe the Guv mint around 30 million dollars in penalties, and that's only going back ten years, for not filling in my log book in a timely manner).

Ignorance of the law is no excuse!!!.

Authority keeps promoting that, but shouldn't it be a mitigating excuse that the laws are not understandable to them that must comply with them, rather than just the lawyers??

Part 61 has descended upon us.

Terrence F..ck witson says the sky hasn't fallen in!!

Give it time Terry, you may just get to use your public provided A380 endo. in anger yet, that's if you can find an FO to fly with.

[Virtually There]

Hi yr right, I get most of that. Perhaps I can phrase it this way:

As a LAME, what documents (regulations) do you use for reference when maintaining a Class B aircraft to the charter category standard?

Put simply, where would I be able to view the difference between (or definition of) the "maintenance standard" of a charter aircraft, airwork aircraft and private aircraft?

Put even more simply, if I came to you as a LAME with a Class B aircraft and asked you what category I should put it in, what would you tell me to read first to educate myself on the differences in maintenance schedules, requirements (and obviously costs)?

I've been through Part 4, 4A, 4B of the CARs, and CAO 100.5, and can't find what I'm looking for. I'm obviously looking in the wrong place.

Thanks.

[Virtually There]

Hi Creampuff, gotta cook dinner - will be back later - but that's what I was thinking.

I'm just having a hard time understanding what yr right means in regards to "maintenance standard". I thought that was simply to do with the scheduled maintenance standard and that the other regs (as highlighted) still allowed the PIC to fly in a lower category if the aircraft didn't meet those standards in-between schedules.

Obviously, the next time the aircraft went in for scheduled maintenance, it would then be maintained to the charter category.

That's really the crux of this whole debate.

[5-in-50]

Flying schools are prime examples where aircraft MRs may be in the Charter / NVFR categories, but flown Airwork / Day consistently with an unservicability placarded and endorsed appropriately.

[Draggertail]

An interesting thread here. Our establishment has always interpreted the regs in the same way as Creampuff. Private, aerial work and charter aircraft are maintained to the same standard, for example CASA schedule 5. The difference for charter is that the aircraft must have the required equipment. The engine must also not have exceeded the manufacturers limit for hours or calendar time. It cannot operate “on condition”.

If an unserviceability occurs which affects charter but not aerial work or private operations the aircraft is placarded and the MR is annotated with the U/S and with the added line of “not to be used for charter until ……. replaced”. Once the U/S item has been replaced the aircraft is able to be used for charter once more.

[Sunfish]

...And this thread demonstrates conclusively why Australian regulations are ****.

[Virtually There]

I don't wish to get into specifics - and I certainly don't want to cast aspersions, as the regs are difficult to interpret at the best of times (well, you may be able to interpret them, but there's no guarantee there's not another sub-reg, part, paragraph or clause lurking somewhere that completely contradicts what you've just read!) - but a couple of examples provided here are on the money. It's reassuring to see them interpreted as we have.

Indeed, our correspondence with CASA also aligns with these views (it's just the way it was worded left a little bit of ambiguity).

Thanks to those who have responded. Our only aim with this exercise has been to seek clarity so that we can all abide by the regs and continue to fly safely.

[kalavo]

As has already been alluded to, there is a crossover between "pilot rules" and "engineer rules", and both sides don't necessarily understand each other.

Our aircraft are maintained to charter category.
Any defect is written on the maintenance release.
An item can be "temporarily cleared" (not the legal definition, but trying to keep it simple here) by applying the appropriate MEL.
If an MEL is not available (rare for things that pilots would accept anyway), we can apply to CASA for a PUS, which for pilots is effectively the same as an MEL.
We continue flying under the restrictions of the MEL or PUS until the fault is rectified by an engineer.

The MEL will contain the restrictions you've made mention of. Ie "aircraft restricted to VFR operations only" or "aircraft only to be flown in private or aerial work operations"

[yr right]

Casa now demands that aircraft in charter have a SOM and sched 5 cannot be used. Btw.

Next your not allowed to interpret regs. You are allowed to have an understanding. This is unless you have legal training.

VT have you consulted your maintenance org.

Next someone said here about flying schools and operate documentation. That's what I've said. EO PUS or MEL.