Part 91 Issues
Well I’m glad it makes sense to someone.
There was me thinking that if I’m flying VFR and I enter IMC I’m in breach of the rules. Now you’re telling me I’m not in breach of the rules because I’m not flying VFR or IFR, and that’s why we need a new rule making it an offence to fly neither VFR nor IFR. Brilliant.
There was me thinking that if I’m flying VFR and I enter IMC I’m in breach of the rules. Now you’re telling me I’m not in breach of the rules because I’m not flying VFR or IFR, and that’s why we need a new rule making it an offence to fly neither VFR nor IFR. Brilliant.
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, Darwin’s Idea of having the stupid or the foolish remove themselves from the gene pool isn’t sufficient in today’s brave new world.
And I guess the Authority had to do something because pilots do still keep trying to do it, usually with fatal results.
Apparently, Darwin’s Idea of having the stupid or the foolish remove themselves from the gene pool isn’t sufficient in today’s brave new world.
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.
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?
What is the purpose of yet another rule, namely proposed 91.275?
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.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Victoria
Posts: 750
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If it has the meaning you give to it then it should probably say that. That would be "simple".
Kaz
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..!!
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..!!
Instead of telling me I'm wrong, perhaps provide an alternate explanation.
There is a range of alternative explanations. None of them is consistent with the policy for making laws. Or with what the words say.
Let’s assume I don’t have an IFR rating and I’m flying an aircraft that is not equipped for flight in IMC. I then fly in IMC - heck, let’s assume it’s deliberate. I’ve 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? I’m not aware of anyone who weighs up compliance and safety risks on that basis.
Let’s assume I don’t have an IFR rating and I’m flying an aircraft that is not equipped for flight in IMC. I then fly in IMC - heck, let’s assume it’s deliberate. I’ve 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? I’m not aware of anyone who weighs up compliance and safety risks on that basis.
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!
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Victoria
Posts: 750
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But I can say that English is a strange language.
Kaz
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 ....
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.
.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.
I never have refuelled and never will refuel with 2 fire extinguishers available. Full stop.
How about a straw poll.
How many times have you encountered fire during refuelling?
Me: Zilch.
How many times have you encountered fire during refuelling?
Me: Zilch.
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
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
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
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
Perhaps the new rule should be at least 43 extinguishers? Muppets.