CASA New Part 91
Thread Starter
CASA New Part 91
A link to the proposed part 91 regulations was posted in the "New Broom" thread. I think that perhaps it is important enough to warrant its own thread so here it is below.
https://www.casa.gov.au/regulations-...-operating-and
Comments in to CASA by 6th of October 20156 but according to them these are the final rules subject to minor changes and the comments will be for future reviews.
https://www.casa.gov.au/regulations-...-operating-and
Comments in to CASA by 6th of October 20156 but according to them these are the final rules subject to minor changes and the comments will be for future reviews.
CASA is keen to ensure that the rules operate in practice as they are designed to. Minor changes may appear in the final version of Part 91 on that basis. We have listened to what you told us and incorporated your suggestions where possible, however if you have additional comments for consideration in future reviews, please email project leader Stuart Jones by close of business, 6 October 2015.
Thread Starter
91.495 Operating on manoeuvring area, or in the vicinity, of non-controlled aerodrome—landing and taking off into the wind
(1) This regulation does not apply in relation to an aircraft engaged in an aerial application operation in accordance with the requirements of regulation 137.160.
(2) The pilot in command of an aircraft for a flight contravenes this subregulation if:
(a) the aircraft is operated on the manoeuvring area of, or in the vicinity of, a non-controlled aerodrome; and
(b) the pilot does not, to the extent practicable, land and take off
into the wind.
(3) Subregulation (2) does not apply if:
(a) the aircraft flight manual instructions for the aircraft allow the aircraft to land or take off downwind; and
(b) the pilot is satisfied that traffic conditions at the aerodrome enable such a landing or take-off to be carried out safely.
(4) A person commits an offence if the person contravenes
subregulation (2).
Penalty: 50 penalty units
(1) This regulation does not apply in relation to an aircraft engaged in an aerial application operation in accordance with the requirements of regulation 137.160.
(2) The pilot in command of an aircraft for a flight contravenes this subregulation if:
(a) the aircraft is operated on the manoeuvring area of, or in the vicinity of, a non-controlled aerodrome; and
(b) the pilot does not, to the extent practicable, land and take off
into the wind.
(3) Subregulation (2) does not apply if:
(a) the aircraft flight manual instructions for the aircraft allow the aircraft to land or take off downwind; and
(b) the pilot is satisfied that traffic conditions at the aerodrome enable such a landing or take-off to be carried out safely.
(4) A person commits an offence if the person contravenes
subregulation (2).
Penalty: 50 penalty units
$9000 please
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 565
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely most if not all aircraft Flight Manuals specify a correction value to takeoff and landing distances in the event of a tailwind, thereby meeting subreg 3A and making this a bit of a moot point?
Thread Starter
I am pretty sure that the old piper charts only had the zero wind condition in the performance section. Some like the Pawnee dont even have a performance section.
no-one,
Re.91.495.
This is the same as the current regulation, CAR 166A, the reference to not having to operate into wind was a change to the long standing rules, several years ago, so that Regionals, who have always arrived on the nearest runway to where they have come from, and depart pointing as close to where they are going, regardless of traffic, would no longer be committing an offense each time they operated out of wind.
In short, schedule and cost trumps risk minimization (aka "safety").
As for the example given, don't worry about Part 91, the Act, which is not changing, covers that, S.20A.
I wish. If you believe the summary, you probably believe in the tooth fairy.
Somebody did work out the number of new strict liability criminal offense, but I don't have the numbers.
Tootle pip!!
PS: For wind limitations, see the Limitations section of the AFM.
Re.91.495.
This is the same as the current regulation, CAR 166A, the reference to not having to operate into wind was a change to the long standing rules, several years ago, so that Regionals, who have always arrived on the nearest runway to where they have come from, and depart pointing as close to where they are going, regardless of traffic, would no longer be committing an offense each time they operated out of wind.
In short, schedule and cost trumps risk minimization (aka "safety").
As for the example given, don't worry about Part 91, the Act, which is not changing, covers that, S.20A.
If you read the summary document you will see that vety little is new compared to the current rules
Somebody did work out the number of new strict liability criminal offense, but I don't have the numbers.
Tootle pip!!
PS: For wind limitations, see the Limitations section of the AFM.
Thread Starter
The current rule(CAR 166A) reads:
Under the current rules you can takeoff with a tail wind but down slope if taking off up the slope is not practicable. Under the new rules this is an offence.
Here's another one:
CAR 153 only requires that the safety pilot is a competent pilot and CAO 40.0(2.7) only requires that the safety pilot hold a pilots licence other than a students and is endorsed on the aircraft.
(h) if the pilot takes off from, or lands at, the aerodrome, the pilot must take off or land into the wind if, at the time of the take-off or landing:
(i) the pilot is not permitted under subregulation (5) to take off or land downwind; and
(ii) it is practicable to take off or land into the wind.
(i) the pilot is not permitted under subregulation (5) to take off or land downwind; and
(ii) it is practicable to take off or land into the wind.
Here's another one:
(1) The pilot in command of an aircraft for a flight contravenes this
subregulation if:
(a) the aircraft is flown in meteorological conditions other than
IMC; and
(b) during the flight, IMC conditions are simulated; and
(c) a requirement mentioned in subregulation (2) is not met.
(2) The requirements are the following:
(a) a pilot (the safety pilot) must:
(i) occupy a pilot seat fitted with fully functioning flight controls; and
(ii) have adequate vision forward and to each side of the aircraft;
(b) a pilot (the second pilot) flying under simulated IMC must occupy a pilot seat fitted with fully functioning flight controls;
(c) the safety pilot must hold one or more of the following:
(i) an instrument rating;
(ii) a flight instructor rating;
(iii) a flight examiner rating.
subregulation if:
(a) the aircraft is flown in meteorological conditions other than
IMC; and
(b) during the flight, IMC conditions are simulated; and
(c) a requirement mentioned in subregulation (2) is not met.
(2) The requirements are the following:
(a) a pilot (the safety pilot) must:
(i) occupy a pilot seat fitted with fully functioning flight controls; and
(ii) have adequate vision forward and to each side of the aircraft;
(b) a pilot (the second pilot) flying under simulated IMC must occupy a pilot seat fitted with fully functioning flight controls;
(c) the safety pilot must hold one or more of the following:
(i) an instrument rating;
(ii) a flight instructor rating;
(iii) a flight examiner rating.
Join Date: May 2013
Location: have I forgotten or am I lost?
Age: 71
Posts: 1,126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
loading luggage on seats
the first cross country I did across australia was done with a friend.
we loaded the luggage in accordance with the very scant loading information in the DCA stamped flight manual.
first leg was 2 1/2 hours to kalgoorlie.
about half the way I noticed that the elevator trim had no more range and was on the forward stop.
for the last half hour into Kal I was applying more and more forward elevator.
this continued on each leg all the way across to albury, the destination.
on my return I decided to investigate and jacked the aircraft in the hangar.
I did a full first principles measure up of the weight and balance.
I considered and weighed up every scenario that was possible for flying the aircraft.
after some weeks of deliberation I came to the conclusion that putting the luggage in a sausage bag (sports bag) to about the dimensions of a human torso, sitting this in the seat on its end and strapping it in with the lap sash seat belt was the safest option for cross country flight.
after all if a passenger was safe sitting there in the lap sash belt then a sports bag of the same dimensions would be equally as secure.
of course my aircraft only has two seats and as part of its confguration it has dual controls. the passenger rudder pedals sit flat on the floor and are inactive until lifted up on to the detents. the control column has its counterpart for the passenger.
it should be obvious to blind freddy that when you put the bag in the seat you ensure that the bag can never foul the movement of the control column.
I have flown solo across australia and back twice doing this. it changes the character of the aircraft completely since at all times the cg remains in the centre of the range.
enter the new regulations...
(3) The pilot in command of an aircraft engaged in a flight commits an offence if, at any time during the flight, the pilot permits cargo to be carried in the aircraft on a flight control seat.
Penalty: 50 penalty units.
thanks CAsA you have just made the safest method of carrying luggage in my homebuilt a subject of a draconian penalty.
how about rewording it to "the pilot permits cargo to be carried unrestrained on a flight control seat" that would fix the problem.
we loaded the luggage in accordance with the very scant loading information in the DCA stamped flight manual.
first leg was 2 1/2 hours to kalgoorlie.
about half the way I noticed that the elevator trim had no more range and was on the forward stop.
for the last half hour into Kal I was applying more and more forward elevator.
this continued on each leg all the way across to albury, the destination.
on my return I decided to investigate and jacked the aircraft in the hangar.
I did a full first principles measure up of the weight and balance.
I considered and weighed up every scenario that was possible for flying the aircraft.
after some weeks of deliberation I came to the conclusion that putting the luggage in a sausage bag (sports bag) to about the dimensions of a human torso, sitting this in the seat on its end and strapping it in with the lap sash seat belt was the safest option for cross country flight.
after all if a passenger was safe sitting there in the lap sash belt then a sports bag of the same dimensions would be equally as secure.
of course my aircraft only has two seats and as part of its confguration it has dual controls. the passenger rudder pedals sit flat on the floor and are inactive until lifted up on to the detents. the control column has its counterpart for the passenger.
it should be obvious to blind freddy that when you put the bag in the seat you ensure that the bag can never foul the movement of the control column.
I have flown solo across australia and back twice doing this. it changes the character of the aircraft completely since at all times the cg remains in the centre of the range.
enter the new regulations...
(3) The pilot in command of an aircraft engaged in a flight commits an offence if, at any time during the flight, the pilot permits cargo to be carried in the aircraft on a flight control seat.
Penalty: 50 penalty units.
thanks CAsA you have just made the safest method of carrying luggage in my homebuilt a subject of a draconian penalty.
how about rewording it to "the pilot permits cargo to be carried unrestrained on a flight control seat" that would fix the problem.
"To the extent practicable "
Your downhill tailwind takeoff is allowed because the steep uphill takeoff is not practical or safe. At least that's how I read it.
Your downhill tailwind takeoff is allowed because the steep uphill takeoff is not practical or safe. At least that's how I read it.
Doubleyeweight, Perhaps confirm that "Cargo" and "Baggage" are Two different things?
If they aren't then a flight bag or headset case on the RHS are problematic as well.
If they aren't then a flight bag or headset case on the RHS are problematic as well.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Victoria
Posts: 750
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can see the next re-write occupying lots of time and taxpayers money already.
Scenario: A couple of Warriors and a C172 with low hour student pilots practising circuits and landing on 18 in light and variable conditions tending southerly. Perfect for short time solos. The runway direction is away from the adjacent town.
I join the circuit but the wind swings around to less than a couple of knots from the north. Everyone else legally and sensibly continues with circuits on 18.
I have no FM or POH so don't qualify for the exception and announce I'm changing direction even though the change in wind is probably very transient. PANIC!
Who writes theses things?
Why an "and" instead of an "or" in the exception?
Ridiculous!
Kaz
Scenario: A couple of Warriors and a C172 with low hour student pilots practising circuits and landing on 18 in light and variable conditions tending southerly. Perfect for short time solos. The runway direction is away from the adjacent town.
I join the circuit but the wind swings around to less than a couple of knots from the north. Everyone else legally and sensibly continues with circuits on 18.
I have no FM or POH so don't qualify for the exception and announce I'm changing direction even though the change in wind is probably very transient. PANIC!
Who writes theses things?
Why an "and" instead of an "or" in the exception?
Ridiculous!
Kaz
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Victoria
Posts: 750
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't have hours to spare to scroll through the new regs for a definition but the 1988 Regs state ...
"cargo " means things other than passengers carried in aircraft.
Kaz
"cargo " means things other than passengers carried in aircraft.
Kaz
Folks,
Given the number of exceptions popping up, the poster who suggested that the new new rules should just prohibit everything, and the exceptions become the rules, had something.
I still have a copy of the first draft of Part 91 from 1998, simple and straightforward, every iteration since has got sillier and sillier.
You will notice that Mr. Skidmore has knocked back allowing individual instructors to teach as per USA ---- once again, all because it would reduce our supposedly world wide reputation for very high training standards.
Where can I hire salesmen (salespersons??) that can sell a pitch like that to an otherwise intelligent person, I will make a fortune selling hamburgers to Hindus.
And you are correct, and this is another example of CASA ignoring the basic "rules" for rule writing, with a hefty fine in the offing, who gets to decide, in the real world, what is "practicable". There are plenty more of these in Part 91, and if you don't flood CASA with complaints by way of the NPRM, don't complain when nothing changes. And copy in your local member, the Minister, Senator Fawcett and the Chairman of the CASA Board on every NPRM reply.
Tootle pip!!
Given the number of exceptions popping up, the poster who suggested that the new new rules should just prohibit everything, and the exceptions become the rules, had something.
I still have a copy of the first draft of Part 91 from 1998, simple and straightforward, every iteration since has got sillier and sillier.
You will notice that Mr. Skidmore has knocked back allowing individual instructors to teach as per USA ---- once again, all because it would reduce our supposedly world wide reputation for very high training standards.
Where can I hire salesmen (salespersons??) that can sell a pitch like that to an otherwise intelligent person, I will make a fortune selling hamburgers to Hindus.
Your downhill tailwind takeoff is allowed because the steep uphill takeoff is not practical or safe. At least that's how I read it.
Tootle pip!!
dubbleyew eight
What para is that?
Para 91.690 Carriage of cargo - unoccupied seats - makes no mention of that.
enter the new regulations...
(3) The pilot in command of an aircraft engaged in a flight commits an offence if, at any time during the flight, the pilot permits cargo to be carried in the aircraft on a flight control seat.
Penalty: 50 penalty units.
(3) The pilot in command of an aircraft engaged in a flight commits an offence if, at any time during the flight, the pilot permits cargo to be carried in the aircraft on a flight control seat.
Penalty: 50 penalty units.
Para 91.690 Carriage of cargo - unoccupied seats - makes no mention of that.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Time for civil disobedience.
everyone keep doing what you are doing safely…..if you get ramped make them prove the old way was dangerous.
I give up, I refuse to comply with stupid…..and anyone challenging me can get
I will not go out of my way to kill myself, promise
everyone keep doing what you are doing safely…..if you get ramped make them prove the old way was dangerous.
I give up, I refuse to comply with stupid…..and anyone challenging me can get
I will not go out of my way to kill myself, promise
I especially like the self incrimination regulation. If you think you are about to use part of your reserve, you must declare an emergency.
Get ****ed CASA.*
All your new regulations will do is entirely alienate the aviation community and ensure that no one EVER declares a fuel related emergency.
* And I mean get ****ed. The mark of a Gentleman is that he does not give offence unintentionally. In the case of part 91, when you wish to label me a felon If I transgress your draconian regulations, I say get ****ed - and I say that because I know a few judges, and that is what they say about the law and those in front of them, and each other in private.
There is no point arguing with CASA. This whole part needs withdrawal and redrafting - starting with removal of strict liability.
To put it another way; the draft regulation is designed to stitch up people like Dominic James - who are faced with ambiguous situations and commercial pressures - and ensure without any doubt that the regulator and Airservices will never be blamed for the consequences of their stupidity and corruption.
Get ****ed CASA!
To put it yet another way, in the words of an eminent jurist who is an acquaintance: " If you want to strengthen this regulation, water it down" - meaning that courts don't like to enforce draconian bull****. CASAS proposed regulations actually decrease safety and should be opposed because of it.
Get ****ed CASA.*
All your new regulations will do is entirely alienate the aviation community and ensure that no one EVER declares a fuel related emergency.
* And I mean get ****ed. The mark of a Gentleman is that he does not give offence unintentionally. In the case of part 91, when you wish to label me a felon If I transgress your draconian regulations, I say get ****ed - and I say that because I know a few judges, and that is what they say about the law and those in front of them, and each other in private.
There is no point arguing with CASA. This whole part needs withdrawal and redrafting - starting with removal of strict liability.
To put it another way; the draft regulation is designed to stitch up people like Dominic James - who are faced with ambiguous situations and commercial pressures - and ensure without any doubt that the regulator and Airservices will never be blamed for the consequences of their stupidity and corruption.
Get ****ed CASA!
To put it yet another way, in the words of an eminent jurist who is an acquaintance: " If you want to strengthen this regulation, water it down" - meaning that courts don't like to enforce draconian bull****. CASAS proposed regulations actually decrease safety and should be opposed because of it.
Last edited by Sunfish; 15th Aug 2015 at 11:59.