CASA opinion: Aircraft must be grounded in temps over 40 degrees
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 669
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes the burden of proof is on CASA that you took of at 42C, but that would be easy to prove, and as it's a clause of strict liability you are now liable.
There is no law that says you can't take off at 42C. The only applicable law says you can't take off overloaded.
But how can CASA prove you were overloaded when the charts only go up to 40C?
But how can CASA prove you were overloaded when the charts only go up to 40C?
The law clearly (albeit in my opinion, stupidly) states that you must not allow the aircraft to takeoff overweight.
If the charts cannot be extrapolated and you are operating outside of a limit of that chart, then you are breaking the law. The law is one of strict liability that permits no defence.
Sadly there is nothing to stop CASA ramp checking anyone who commits aviation on a +40C + SL day and asking how you complied with the strict requirement. The short answer is you can't and they could, if they wished, send you the 'fax' and refer to the prosecutor.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 669
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is up you to prove that you were not.
... and you are operating outside of a limit of that chart, then you are breaking the law.
The short answer is you can't
via Bankstown Boy:
...Sadly there is nothing to stop CASA ramp checking anyone who commits aviation on a +40C + SL day and asking how you complied with the strict requirement. The short answer is you can't and they could, if they wished, send you the 'fax' and refer to the prosecutor.
...Sadly there is nothing to stop CASA ramp checking anyone who commits aviation on a +40C + SL day and asking how you complied with the strict requirement. The short answer is you can't and they could, if they wished, send you the 'fax' and refer to the prosecutor.
On a hot summers day if the aircraft is parked between a row of stifling windless hangers the temperature at the aircraft could be anywhere up to 10+ degrees hotter then if it were parked 50 metres away on the wind swept grass near, though not under, that shady tree. There is no fixed ambient temperature on an airfield.
The other mater is many of the temp charts for older aircraft were done before electronic temperature recorders were in common usage. Older temp gauges are a bit lazy, i.e. They only give an average temperature over a few minutes time frame and thus do not record every fleeting high temperature peak like the electronic temp gauges do. This is well seen with the current global warming idiocy where modern temperature 'records' recorded on millisecond recording electronic equipment is compared to the older temperature records recorded via lazy mercury gauges. It may be something CASA needs to look at as to how a pilot defines the temp to use.
I suspect even Rumpole could run rings around any ramp check temperatures if it were bought to court. At any rate, it would certainly put CASA square into the global warming 'issue'..
.
Note that the law doesn't stipulate how you have to assess your takeoff performance
djpil in an earlier post provided information on how to factor the take off distance for runways that were not as described on the chart, but I'm not aware of any OFFICIAL document giving our newly minted 172 PPL guidance, or anybody else for that matter.
In a previous life used to operate out of wheat paddocks with standing stubble. Sure extends the run.
FB, you raise a good point about temperature. In summer the aircraft gauge could get up to 60C from heat soak if it had been standing for a period of time. No other source of info. Prop wash after start used to bring it back.
So you're guilty until proven innocent under Australian law, then?
Ok, so which law is that?
For example, you could say, "I took off perfectly safely yesterday, under the exact same conditions".
The law doesn't work the way you think it does. If you tried anything that you have suggested as your version of a defence, then after counsel for the prosecution stopped sniggering the magistrate or judge would pretty much move to the penalty phase.
You are labouring under the misapprehension that there is an innocent until proven guilty clause in Australian civil law. There is not.
You would need some basis for making the claim and owning up to the fact your temperature gauge is inaccurate ... well the 'safer skies' mob have strict liability rules on accuracy of gauges too.
The most modern aircraft I have an AFM is the C208. In limitations it says-
The aircraft I am endorsed to fly, The C182P AFM does not have a temp limit anywhere in limitations...it has a service ceiling of 17700ft
If I am at AS, elevation 1789Ft and a temp of 42C...my 182 could surely never leave the runway..yet it does...why is this so?
OK whats the density altitude? for 42C...if pressure alt is right for AS then the density alt is going to be 5500ft say 6000ft...go back to chart for takeoff at max weight..look for ISA temp, not there so go to 20C graph and 6000ft
which gives you your takeoff performance...if someone is so bloody dumb not to understand how to use their P charts they do not deserve to hold their licence...ANY LICENCE!
So..if the there is no temp limit written in limitations there is NO LIMIT FOR TEMPERATURE!
Last time I passed PPL my wing sees only air density, my internal combustion engine only sees air density. The charts are there to help the pilot make interpretations easier. Just because the company calculations stop at 40C does not mean that is a limitation. If there is a pressure altitude up to 8000ft that means you have density altitude to 8000ft USE IT! and tell CASA where to bloody go if they ever try this on you!
OUTSIDE AIR TEMPERATURE LIMITS
Cold Day: ·· -54°C from sea level to 25,000 feet.
Hot Day:
Ground Operations: +53°C from sea level to 5000 feet; ISA +37°C above 5000 feet. . Flight Operations: ISA +35°C from sea level to 25,000 feet.
Cold Day: ·· -54°C from sea level to 25,000 feet.
Hot Day:
Ground Operations: +53°C from sea level to 5000 feet; ISA +37°C above 5000 feet. . Flight Operations: ISA +35°C from sea level to 25,000 feet.
If I am at AS, elevation 1789Ft and a temp of 42C...my 182 could surely never leave the runway..yet it does...why is this so?
OK whats the density altitude? for 42C...if pressure alt is right for AS then the density alt is going to be 5500ft say 6000ft...go back to chart for takeoff at max weight..look for ISA temp, not there so go to 20C graph and 6000ft
which gives you your takeoff performance...if someone is so bloody dumb not to understand how to use their P charts they do not deserve to hold their licence...ANY LICENCE!
So..if the there is no temp limit written in limitations there is NO LIMIT FOR TEMPERATURE!
Last time I passed PPL my wing sees only air density, my internal combustion engine only sees air density. The charts are there to help the pilot make interpretations easier. Just because the company calculations stop at 40C does not mean that is a limitation. If there is a pressure altitude up to 8000ft that means you have density altitude to 8000ft USE IT! and tell CASA where to bloody go if they ever try this on you!
Effectively, the Cessna charts give you pressure altitude up to 8000ft at max weight. ISA at 8000ft is 0C. So my C182 p chart runs out at a pressure alt of 10500ft for max weight. If I lower my weight I can get p charts to
ISA+40 or 13000ft pressure altitude. I have never operated in PNG or West Irian but I am pretty damn sure any pilot who has flew up there can tell me that a C182 can take off from 8000ft pretty well.
ISA+40 or 13000ft pressure altitude. I have never operated in PNG or West Irian but I am pretty damn sure any pilot who has flew up there can tell me that a C182 can take off from 8000ft pretty well.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 669
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bankstown Boy,
It is tough to debate you when you don't answer my questions and fail to understand what I have written. I am going to have to go over everything again, laboriously. Please read carefully this time, and answer my questions.
Can you give an example of a "strict liability civil matter" where you are presumed guilty until proven innocent? If what you are claiming is true, then you could be taken to court on nothing more than an allegation - and then convicted if you fail to mount a defence.
Are you saying that this happens in Australia? Can you give an example?
Take the case of a cop issuing you with a speeding infringement. This would be an offence of strict liability in every state. Do you consider this to be an example of a case where you are "guilty until proven innocent"? Please answer this question.
When I asked "Ok, so which law is that?", I was actually referring to this statement of yours ...
... and asking which law it is that you have broken. There is no law that says you must not operate outside the limits of a chart. Can you point me to any such law?
This statement shows, very clearly, that you do not understand what I have written. I have never said, nor implied, any such thing. My whole point is that to break a law, the law has to exist in the first place. There are clear laws that apply to takeoff weight and medical certificates.
When it comes to taking off, there is only one law, and it states that you cannot take off overloaded. Therefore, to charge you under this law, the allegation has to be that you "took off overloaded". It cannot be that you went outside a chart limit.
By admitting that you "took off yesterday under identical conditions", what law have you broken?
Let's say you safely took off at 42C, but your charts only went to 40C. Are you saying CASA could charge you with an offence? If so, then please state exactly which law it is that you have broken.
It is tough to debate you when you don't answer my questions and fail to understand what I have written. I am going to have to go over everything again, laboriously. Please read carefully this time, and answer my questions.
Can you give an example of a "strict liability civil matter" where you are presumed guilty until proven innocent? If what you are claiming is true, then you could be taken to court on nothing more than an allegation - and then convicted if you fail to mount a defence.
Are you saying that this happens in Australia? Can you give an example?
Take the case of a cop issuing you with a speeding infringement. This would be an offence of strict liability in every state. Do you consider this to be an example of a case where you are "guilty until proven innocent"? Please answer this question.
When I asked "Ok, so which law is that?", I was actually referring to this statement of yours ...
If the charts cannot be extrapolated and you are operating outside of a limit of that chart, then you are breaking the law.
You could also say that you took off 500kg over MGTOW yesterday and it was fine, so there is no issue with the MGTOW rule either; or I flew without a valid medical and it was fine too.
When it comes to taking off, there is only one law, and it states that you cannot take off overloaded. Therefore, to charge you under this law, the allegation has to be that you "took off overloaded". It cannot be that you went outside a chart limit.
By admitting that you "took off yesterday under identical conditions", what law have you broken?
Let's say you safely took off at 42C, but your charts only went to 40C. Are you saying CASA could charge you with an offence? If so, then please state exactly which law it is that you have broken.
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Dog House
Age: 49
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Queensland landholders 'guilty until proven innocent' under land clearing reforms - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
One example is section 685 of the Local Government Act. It reverses the presumption of innocence by making that mere allegations, such as that someone has not received a council approval, is "sufficient proof of the matter" alleged. In the words of the chief justice, this "renders someone guilty of a criminal offence by a mere accusation".
Another example is section 60E of the Water Management Act. It says that where water is taken without a licence, the occupier of the relevant premises is deemed guilty of an offence. Remarkably, the act goes on to state that this does not prevent proceedings being brought against "the person who actually committed the offence".
Federal law provides many further examples. A long list is set out in the report on traditional rights and freedoms released earlier this month by the Australian Law Reform Commission. Some of the federal laws that breach the presumption are in expected areas such as terrorism and drug offences. Others relate to taxation, copyright and marriage.
One example is section 685 of the Local Government Act. It reverses the presumption of innocence by making that mere allegations, such as that someone has not received a council approval, is "sufficient proof of the matter" alleged. In the words of the chief justice, this "renders someone guilty of a criminal offence by a mere accusation".
Another example is section 60E of the Water Management Act. It says that where water is taken without a licence, the occupier of the relevant premises is deemed guilty of an offence. Remarkably, the act goes on to state that this does not prevent proceedings being brought against "the person who actually committed the offence".
Federal law provides many further examples. A long list is set out in the report on traditional rights and freedoms released earlier this month by the Australian Law Reform Commission. Some of the federal laws that breach the presumption are in expected areas such as terrorism and drug offences. Others relate to taxation, copyright and marriage.
I don't owe you a living and I am not your servant.
This is a forum where people come to discuss things.
I have answered your questions explicitly and in some detail previously. The fact they do not accord with your world view, nor do you feel that I have answered you to your satisfaction in no concern of mine.
I suggest if you have any interest, go back and read the succinct answers I gave to your questions, or don't, as suits you. I don't particularly care either way.
Happy Easter, or may the bunny have been good to you, depending on your personal proclivities.
If CASA cannot prosecute a Qantas crew for taking off with no runway lighting in Hobart, what chance have they got in your hypothetical situation of high temperature?
This stuff is only a problem if you have an accident as there is a financial imperative from the insurance company to show that you did something wrong.
Accused Qantas pilots won't stand trial
This stuff is only a problem if you have an accident as there is a financial imperative from the insurance company to show that you did something wrong.
Accused Qantas pilots won't stand trial
I've seen one big flying school use a modified version of CASA's SE Endorsement Questionnaire to specify short dry grass for the airfield performance question.
Moderator
There is no law that says you must not operate outside the limits of a chart. Can you point me to any such law ?
Now, I'm just an average old pharte pilot and aero engineer, not a lawyer in any sense of the word.
However,
(a) the Act [98 (3)] talks about the Governor General's having the power to make regulations for or in relation to the following
(b) [(h)] goes on to say empowering CASA .. to give or issue directions or instructions ... with respect to matters affecting the ... operation ... of aircraft
(c) [(ka)] provides for requiring the production/amendment of flight (and other) manuals
(d) [(kd)] talks about requiring specified persons to comply with such manuals, systems and documents as in force at a particular time or from time to time
(e) CAR (1988) 2 gives some pertinent definitions -
gross weight, in relation to an aircraft at any time, means the weight of the aircraft, together with the weight of all persons and goods (including fuel) on board the aircraft, at that time, estimated in accordance with the method set out in a direction in force under subregulation 235(1).
maximum landing weight, in relation to an aircraft, means the weight set out in the certificate of airworthiness of, or the flight manual for, the aircraft as the maximum landing weight.
maximum take‑off weight, in relation to an aircraft, means the weight set out in the certificate of airworthiness of, or the flight manual for, the aircraft as the maximum take‑off weight.
It follows that the AFM regulated weights would be captured as well as the TC weights - see CAR (1988) 235.
(f) CAR (1988) 54 talks more about flight manuals
The registered operator of an aircraft must ensure that the aircraft’s flight manual is at all times appropriate for the aircraft, having regard to:
(a) any direction issued by CASA relating to the flight manual; and
(b) any modifications to the aircraft that would require amendment of the flight manual; and
(c) any instructions in relation to the flight manual from the holder of a type certificate, supplemental type certificate or modification/repair design approval that applies to the aircraft
(g) CAR 233 (b) has this to say -
the gross weight of the aircraft does not exceed the limitations fixed by or under regulation 235 and is such that flight performance in accordance with the standards specified by CASA for the type of operation to be undertaken is possible under the prevailing conditions
(h) CAR 233 (c) adds this -
any directions of CASA with respect to the loading of the aircraft given under regulation 235 have been complied with
(i) CAR 235 is the catch all, I think ..
(1) CASA may, for the purposes of these Regulations, give directions setting out the method of estimating, with respect to an aircraft at anytime:
(a) the weight of the aircraft, together with the weight of all persons and goods (including fuel) on board the aircraft, at that time ...
(2) CASA may ... give directions setting out the manner of determining, with respect to a proposed flight of an aircraft:
(a) a maximum weight, being a weight less than the maximum take‑off weight of the aircraft; or
(b) a maximum weight, being a weight less than the maximum landing weight of the aircraft;
that the gross weight of the aircraft at take‑off or landing, as the case may be, is not to exceed.
(2A) A person must not contravene a direction under subregulation (1) or (2) ...
(3) A manner of determining a maximum weight referred to in subregulation (2) shall be such as to take into account such of the following considerations as CASA considers appropriate:
......
(d) the meteorological conditions at the aerodrome at which the aircraft is to take off or land;
(e) the altitude of the aerodrome at which the aircraft is to take off or land;
.....
(g) the material of which the surface of the aerodrome in the direction in which the aircraft is to take off or land is constituted and the condition and slope of that surface
......
(4) The pilot in command of an aircraft must not allow the aircraft to take off if its gross weight exceeds its maximum take‑off weight or, if a lesser weight determined in accordance with a direction under subregulation (2) is applicable to the take‑off, that lesser weight.
.....
(6) The pilot in command of an aircraft, must not land the aircraft if its gross weight exceeds its maximum landing weight or, if a lesser weight determined in accordance with a direction under subregulation (2) is applicable to the landing, that lesser weight.
Presuming that the typical pilot is, indeed, familiar with the CAO 20.7 series, one should have a look at the following CAOs which cover the bulk of operations ...
(j) CAO 20.7.1b which talks about elevations and ambient temperatures
(k) CAO 20.7.4 which talks about pressure heights and temperatures.
I think you should be planning on co-opting the services of very good Counsel in the event that you are challenged in Court regarding your philosophies ...
Now, I'm just an average old pharte pilot and aero engineer, not a lawyer in any sense of the word.
However,
(a) the Act [98 (3)] talks about the Governor General's having the power to make regulations for or in relation to the following
(b) [(h)] goes on to say empowering CASA .. to give or issue directions or instructions ... with respect to matters affecting the ... operation ... of aircraft
(c) [(ka)] provides for requiring the production/amendment of flight (and other) manuals
(d) [(kd)] talks about requiring specified persons to comply with such manuals, systems and documents as in force at a particular time or from time to time
(e) CAR (1988) 2 gives some pertinent definitions -
gross weight, in relation to an aircraft at any time, means the weight of the aircraft, together with the weight of all persons and goods (including fuel) on board the aircraft, at that time, estimated in accordance with the method set out in a direction in force under subregulation 235(1).
maximum landing weight, in relation to an aircraft, means the weight set out in the certificate of airworthiness of, or the flight manual for, the aircraft as the maximum landing weight.
maximum take‑off weight, in relation to an aircraft, means the weight set out in the certificate of airworthiness of, or the flight manual for, the aircraft as the maximum take‑off weight.
It follows that the AFM regulated weights would be captured as well as the TC weights - see CAR (1988) 235.
(f) CAR (1988) 54 talks more about flight manuals
The registered operator of an aircraft must ensure that the aircraft’s flight manual is at all times appropriate for the aircraft, having regard to:
(a) any direction issued by CASA relating to the flight manual; and
(b) any modifications to the aircraft that would require amendment of the flight manual; and
(c) any instructions in relation to the flight manual from the holder of a type certificate, supplemental type certificate or modification/repair design approval that applies to the aircraft
(g) CAR 233 (b) has this to say -
the gross weight of the aircraft does not exceed the limitations fixed by or under regulation 235 and is such that flight performance in accordance with the standards specified by CASA for the type of operation to be undertaken is possible under the prevailing conditions
(h) CAR 233 (c) adds this -
any directions of CASA with respect to the loading of the aircraft given under regulation 235 have been complied with
(i) CAR 235 is the catch all, I think ..
(1) CASA may, for the purposes of these Regulations, give directions setting out the method of estimating, with respect to an aircraft at anytime:
(a) the weight of the aircraft, together with the weight of all persons and goods (including fuel) on board the aircraft, at that time ...
(2) CASA may ... give directions setting out the manner of determining, with respect to a proposed flight of an aircraft:
(a) a maximum weight, being a weight less than the maximum take‑off weight of the aircraft; or
(b) a maximum weight, being a weight less than the maximum landing weight of the aircraft;
that the gross weight of the aircraft at take‑off or landing, as the case may be, is not to exceed.
(2A) A person must not contravene a direction under subregulation (1) or (2) ...
(3) A manner of determining a maximum weight referred to in subregulation (2) shall be such as to take into account such of the following considerations as CASA considers appropriate:
......
(d) the meteorological conditions at the aerodrome at which the aircraft is to take off or land;
(e) the altitude of the aerodrome at which the aircraft is to take off or land;
.....
(g) the material of which the surface of the aerodrome in the direction in which the aircraft is to take off or land is constituted and the condition and slope of that surface
......
(4) The pilot in command of an aircraft must not allow the aircraft to take off if its gross weight exceeds its maximum take‑off weight or, if a lesser weight determined in accordance with a direction under subregulation (2) is applicable to the take‑off, that lesser weight.
.....
(6) The pilot in command of an aircraft, must not land the aircraft if its gross weight exceeds its maximum landing weight or, if a lesser weight determined in accordance with a direction under subregulation (2) is applicable to the landing, that lesser weight.
Presuming that the typical pilot is, indeed, familiar with the CAO 20.7 series, one should have a look at the following CAOs which cover the bulk of operations ...
(j) CAO 20.7.1b which talks about elevations and ambient temperatures
(k) CAO 20.7.4 which talks about pressure heights and temperatures.
I think you should be planning on co-opting the services of very good Counsel in the event that you are challenged in Court regarding your philosophies ...
I can see Denis Denuto prosecuting for CASA... "No, it's just the vibe, I rest my case". Can anyone help with how many rotary and smaller fixed wing fire fighting aircraft will this possibly cover for SE Australia?
Last time I passed PPL my wing sees only air density, my internal combustion engine only sees air density. The charts are there to help the pilot make interpretations easier. Just because the company calculations stop at 40C does not mean that is a limitation. If there is a pressure altitude up to 8000ft that means you have density altitude to 8000ft USE IT! and tell CASA where to bloody go if they ever try this on you!
Moderator
if they are going to take you on where is the 40+ degrees sourced from
This is the saving grace with temperature .. the local rules permit a variety of not so precise accuracy temperatures so it would be reasonable to presume a range of arguments could be presented to cover the situation.
The important thing is that one needs to be very careful and, perhaps, a bit conservative, if one wishes to step a little outside the charts in respect of any of the variables. I don't think a degree or two in OAT will overly excite CASA but that is just the thin edge of the wedge, as it were.
This is the saving grace with temperature .. the local rules permit a variety of not so precise accuracy temperatures so it would be reasonable to presume a range of arguments could be presented to cover the situation.
The important thing is that one needs to be very careful and, perhaps, a bit conservative, if one wishes to step a little outside the charts in respect of any of the variables. I don't think a degree or two in OAT will overly excite CASA but that is just the thin edge of the wedge, as it were.
The problem with CASA, as demonstrated by this debate, is that they rely on legal arguments which by definition, have nothing to do with safety, in fact the legal arguments are anti safety.
Hence Djplls observation that as his Decathlon has no performance charts, he can do what he likes in respect of temperature with no possibility of CASA prosecution.
In other words, the absence of information on the performance degradation at high density altitudes in the documentation is a net positive from the point of view of avoiding prosecution. This is the reverse of a safety culture.
I have noticed this before in the way aviation is regulated, for example, my aircraft, if it is ever finished, needs an environmental noise compliance certificate ...which will state that this aircraft is exempt from the requirement to have a compliance certificate!
From the point of view of creating a safety culture, it appears to me that CASAs approach is counterproductive. For example, I now know enough to ensure that I will never fit a camera or post stuff to youtube. Data logging is going to be disabled, the maintenance manuals and POH I need to produce will be the bare minimum skeletons I can get away with and any aviation activities will be conducted as far from prying eyes as possible. The aircraft will never fly to shows or events which attract CASA ramp checkers.
Basically CASA has so prescribed aviation activities in this country as to almost make it not worth it.
Hence Djplls observation that as his Decathlon has no performance charts, he can do what he likes in respect of temperature with no possibility of CASA prosecution.
In other words, the absence of information on the performance degradation at high density altitudes in the documentation is a net positive from the point of view of avoiding prosecution. This is the reverse of a safety culture.
I have noticed this before in the way aviation is regulated, for example, my aircraft, if it is ever finished, needs an environmental noise compliance certificate ...which will state that this aircraft is exempt from the requirement to have a compliance certificate!
From the point of view of creating a safety culture, it appears to me that CASAs approach is counterproductive. For example, I now know enough to ensure that I will never fit a camera or post stuff to youtube. Data logging is going to be disabled, the maintenance manuals and POH I need to produce will be the bare minimum skeletons I can get away with and any aviation activities will be conducted as far from prying eyes as possible. The aircraft will never fly to shows or events which attract CASA ramp checkers.
Basically CASA has so prescribed aviation activities in this country as to almost make it not worth it.