The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions The place for students, instructors and charter guys in Oz, NZ and the rest of Oceania.

Part 91 Issues

Old 19th Apr 2018, 02:30
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 3,038
Well Iím glad it makes sense to someone.

There was me thinking that if Iím flying VFR and I enter IMC Iím in breach of the rules. Now youíre telling me Iím not in breach of the rules because Iím not flying VFR or IFR, and thatís why we need a new rule making it an offence to fly neither VFR nor IFR. Brilliant.
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 19th Apr 2018, 02:41
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Outback Australia
Posts: 339
I would have thought that the proven reduced life expectancy of a VFR pilot & aircraft flying into IMC would have been enough of a deterrent but, no. Instead we have x penalty units.

And I guess the Authority had to do something because pilots do still keep trying to do it, usually with fatal results.

Apparently, Darwinís Idea of having the stupid or the foolish remove themselves from the gene pool isnít sufficient in todayís brave new world.
outnabout is offline  
Old 19th Apr 2018, 04:39
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 2,550
Originally Posted by Lead Balloon View Post
Now youíre telling me Iím not in breach of the rules because Iím not flying VFR or IFR, and thatís why we need a new rule making it an offence to fly neither VFR nor IFR.
You ARE in breach of the rules because you are flying neither VFR or IFR.

Pilots break this rule and fly in IMC every day for numerous reasons.

Some do it on the odd occasion, dare I say those less experienced and they don't live to fly another day.
Squawk7700 is offline  
Old 19th Apr 2018, 04:42
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 3,038
Correct - you are already in breach of numerous rules. That is precisely my point.

What is the purpose of yet another rule, namely proposed 91.275?
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 19th Apr 2018, 05:50
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Brisbane, Qld
Posts: 1,209
I think that's the biggest problem with these rules, it isn't that anything that wasn't illegal before has become illegal now, it's that the wording they are now using is absolutely ridiculous and requires a legal degree to be able to understand. It's an absolute disgrace that they write it in this way and expect us to have to follow it properly, they're purposely making the system difficult to understand and unnecessarily burdensome to the industry.
Ixixly is offline  
Old 19th Apr 2018, 07:36
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Victoria
Posts: 755
Originally Posted by Squawk7700 View Post
This simply means that you can't fly in instrument conditions without being equipped and endorsed for IFR. Pretty simple really.
Sorry Squarky, but I don't think it says that all.

If it has the meaning you give to it then it should probably say that. That would be "simple".

Kaz
kaz3g is offline  
Old 19th Apr 2018, 08:10
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Up The 116E, Stbd Turn at 32S...:-)
Age: 78
Posts: 2,775
WOT a convoluted crock this has turned out to be....

Heartedly agree with Mr Spodman - "May Jesus pee in a bucket..."
(Hi Ya 'Spod'...)

The only thing I can think of is that....
1 - If you fly 'VFR', then you are in VMC and are legally able to come down to 500ft AGL - except over the usual.....
2 - If you fly 'IFR', then you may enter IMC and come down to LSALT....

But we knew that when it was written in the 'annals of time and in a much more SIMPLE manner.

NO Cheers, Nope, NONE AT ALL..!!
Ex FSO GRIFFO is offline  
Old 19th Apr 2018, 09:23
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 2,550
Originally Posted by kaz3g View Post
Sorry Squarky, but I don't think it says that all.

If it has the meaning you give to it then it should probably say that. That would be "simple".

Kaz
Sometimes things are not always as they seem on the surface eh Kaz?

Instead of telling me I'm wrong, perhaps provide an alternate explanation.
Squawk7700 is offline  
Old 19th Apr 2018, 09:31
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 3,038
There is a range of alternative explanations. None of them is consistent with the policy for making laws. Or with what the words say.

Letís assume I donít have an IFR rating and Iím flying an aircraft that is not equipped for flight in IMC. I then fly in IMC - heck, letís assume itís deliberate. Iíve breached numerous rules by doing so.

What does proposed 91.275 do that is not already covered by the other rules? Am I less likely to fly in IMC if I breach 7 rules instead of just 6? Iím not aware of anyone who weighs up compliance and safety risks on that basis.
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 19th Apr 2018, 09:47
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Brisbane, Qld
Posts: 1,209
Come on LB, it's not that difficult mate, I personally take out my gigantic stack of law books before I make each and every decision and add up the possible penalty points to help weigh up my options, it only takes an extra couple of weeks for each flight but at least I know I'm breaking as few laws as possible each and every time!
Ixixly is offline  
Old 19th Apr 2018, 10:31
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Everywhere
Posts: 425
When flying anything other than the Laws of Physics is just noise.

CC
Checklist Charlie is offline  
Old 19th Apr 2018, 12:08
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Victoria
Posts: 755
Originally Posted by Squawk7700 View Post
Sometimes things are not always as they seem on the surface eh Kaz?

Instead of telling me I'm wrong, perhaps provide an alternate explanation.
Squawky...I'm just a rather geriatric lawyer of limited skills. It would take someone cleverer than I to explain what the CASA gods intend this to mean.

But I can say that English is a strange language.

Kaz
kaz3g is offline  
Old 19th Apr 2018, 21:48
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 3,038
My point is that, on my reading, it’s not possible to breach proposed 91.275. That’s why I gave the analogy of a rule requiring an aircraft to be flown during hours of daylight or darkness.

An aircraft is always flying “under” either the VFR or the IFR. There are no other alternatives. It may be that the aircraft is flying in breach of those rules, but it’s nonetheless flying “under” either the VFR of the IFR.

Perhaps they meant to say “in accordance with” either the VFR or the IFR ....

Last edited by Lead Balloon; 19th Apr 2018 at 22:37.
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 19th Apr 2018, 22:15
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 8,004
.The rule regarding VFR/IFR flight are lethal because a VFR pilot "trapped' in IFR conditions is going to be less likely to seek help if he knows that he will be prosecuted if he survives.

Last edited by Sunfish; 19th Apr 2018 at 23:09.
Sunfish is offline  
Old 19th Apr 2018, 22:31
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 3,038
I never have refuelled and never will refuel with 2 fire extinguishers available. Full stop.
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 19th Apr 2018, 23:04
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 8,004
Squawk 7700.....and its a strict liability offence.
Sunfish is offline  
Old 19th Apr 2018, 23:50
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 3,038
How about a straw poll.

How many times have you encountered fire during refuelling?

Me: Zilch.
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 20th Apr 2018, 00:19
  #38 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 53
Sunfish I thought the very same thing when I was asked to read it and provide feedback. Technically you would be VFR in IMC however there is an overarching reg (It slips my mind right now) that says where you find yourself in an emergency situation, you are allowed to break any rule to ensure the safety of flight.

No one reads the various Road Traffic Regulations prior to getting a drivers licence, so a fundamental shift in the Examinations and the production of an AIM/VFRG is imperative to success. They have agreed to an AIM/VFRG and also to some really comprehensive education on the changes.

Oh and the CASA gentleman in charge is exceptional. He knew his stuff even though he was only in CASA for 18 months, he never said, "No we can't do that", and where he needed to, he asked the question to the rule writers in Canberra and came back pretty quickly with an explanation.

For example: Why is the reg regarding flight below 500 feet now missing, "Except due stress of weather"? Well it comes back to the overarching reg allowing you to do what is needed in an emergency. No worries, just make sure you educate that to everyone! Yep done deal.

AWB
Alpha Whiskey Bravo is offline  
Old 20th Apr 2018, 00:22
  #39 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Up The 116E, Stbd Turn at 32S...:-)
Age: 78
Posts: 2,775
Personally - Zilch Also - and I used to be a BP refueller. (As well as dogsbody / instructor etc etc )

However, a 'Mooney' was destroyed by fire many moons ago, at Mount Magnet, WA, I think, when the pilot used a plastic container to transfer fuel into the aircraft.

Nil 'earthing' leads.....

The static electricity generated by the splashing fuel and the different 'potentials' of the plastic container & the aircraft caused a spark of sort, and all that was left was the shape of the aircraft on the ground......

Oh Dear.

2 or 42 extinguishers would not have helped this one.

I heard that the pilot suffered some burns as he got the original 'whoosh', but survived OK.
However, the aircraft was a 'trade in' for another....whooops.....

Cheers
Ex FSO GRIFFO is offline  
Old 20th Apr 2018, 00:39
  #40 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 3,038
Perhaps the new rule should be at least 43 extinguishers? Muppets.
Lead Balloon is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.