Part 91 Issues

[thunderbird five]

43 (or other as approved) APPROVED extinguishers, or other such approved devices capable or expected to be capable of extinguishing, putting out, quelling, or quenching a fire, a fire like event, or an event perceived, expected or suspected to be a fire, used by approved personnel. All fires in aircraft must approved, and be of a ferocity not greater than the capacity of the fire suppression equipment and approved personnel available.

Did I miss anything?

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

How about an 'approved' fire under the collective a*ses of a 'certain organisation'......

[Lead Balloon]

1. Aircraft shall not catch fire. Penalty: 5,000 Penalty Units.

2. An offence against rule 1 is an offence of strict liability.

[Lead Balloon]

Originally Posted by Alpha Whiskey Bravo

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

What overarching regulation says that if you find yourself in an emergency situation, you are allowed to break any rule to ensure the safety of flight?

Surprising that a regulation with such an effect ‘slipped your mind’.

You may just be repeating some folklore about section 30 of the Civil Aviation Act, which has nowhere near the scope you assert.

If you are flying under the VFR and end up in IMC and an emergency because you failed to obtain and review a forecast, or were flying head down PPRuNing instead of keeping a good lookout or just flew into IMC for the fun of it, believe me: You’re in deep regulatory sh*t if you survive.

If the emergency was unavoidable, that’s a defence to a prosecution for offences that you commit in dealing with the emergency.

But “unavoidable” is a very, very high threshold.

And administrative action is not a prosecution.

Two words prove this: Dominic James.

[A Squared]

Originally Posted by roundsounds

I also see the requirement to fly at altitudes complying with the hemispherical rule (odds/evens plus 500’) starts at 3000’ AMSL instead of the current 5000’.

MSL or AGL? For what it's worth, it's above 3000ft AGL in the US and Canada. I had to look it up for Canada. Funny, a while back I got lectured by an unpleasant FSS troll in Whitehorse because I'd filed a flight plan for a generally south-east VFR flight at 3000 ft which was (according to her) not a legal altitude for my direction of flight. At the time, I'd just assumed she knew what she was talking about and the laws were different in Canada, so I changed it to 3500. With my new found knowledge, it turns out she was mistaken, in addition to unpleasant. Anyway, apologies for the digression. No idea what the reason for the change is in Oz, but I've never found it too burdensome in the US.

[Left 270]

Originally Posted by Alpha Whiskey Bravo

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

Based on that, the change is that now you would have to declare an emergency vs the stress of weather relief previously allowed. Subtle but different.

With the simulated engine failure change, am I right to say that you would no longer be able to do OEI training in a B200? Or did you need to be both >9 pax and over 8xxxkg?

[djpil]

Check landing distance for every flight

Draft Part 91 MOS Landing (takeoff is similar) Performance

“For subsection (2), the following must be taken into account:

(a) the landing distance available;

(b) the pressure altitude and temperature;

(c) the gradient of the runway in the direction of the landing;

(d) the wind direction, velocity and characteristics;

(e) the landing weather forecast;

(f) the obstacles in the approach path.

(4) The weight of the aeroplane at landing must not exceed the weight limitations contained in or derived from:

(i) theAFM;or

(ii) themanufacturer’sdatamanual(ifany);or

(iii) other data approved for the purpose.”

Consider a type approved to an early version of FAR 23 and still in production - the Super Decathlon. Nil info in the AFM. Manufacturers data based on the best achievement by a test pilot with no allowance for average pilot skill nor percentage allowance for conservatism. No other data is approved (the old D.O.T. P charts are not approved nor may they be valid for a newer production variant).

Manufacturers data has other issues:

• approach speed way way below 1.3 Vs, the accepted safety standard therefore unsafe
• Sealed surface only, not grass so we can’t comply with the regs at our usual airstrips
• Nil info on runway gradient so that rules out some more airfields
• Nil info on tailwinds so will have to hold if Tower notifies a tailwind

The current model certified Pitts S-2C that I fly has takeoff and landing distances in the FAA approved POH. Hard surface runway so not short, dry grass as I normally operate from. No effect of runway gradient. Nil wind only! Gee, CASA doesn't let me extrapolate beyond the approved data so can only operate from a sealed, level runway with nil wind?

A Cessna 172S that I fly occasionally also has takeoff and landing distances per an FAA approved POH and it has some useful extra info. Paved runway plus an allowance for short, dry grass. Nil wind with allowances for headwind and tailwind provided. Nil info on runway gradient however.

[Sunfish]

The criminal laws contained in Part 91 are broad and far-reaching enough that an aggressive regulator will always have a pretext to bring charges against anyone. This is entirely intentional. Those whom the establishment want punished are punished.

At the same time, because everybody and anybody can be made into a criminal whenever convenient, the converse is that violating the law is considered blameless, praiseworthy even, when doing so aligns with consensus establishment goals.

There is no point in studying Part 91, it's purpose is simply to criminalize any action by a pilot if so desired.

[outnabout]

I have developed a theory about Part 91, and regulatory reform in general.

I note small items have snuck into the AIPs...such as an aircraft may not land until the previous aircraft has landed, is clear of the runway, and is taxi-ing away from the runway in use. (My objection to this is that if the previous aircraft lands, exits the runway, and shuts down due to an issue, technically the incoming aircraft should not land.)

I note in Part 91, to land before the previous aircraft is taxi-ing away from the runway is now a criminal offence.

I wonder if the AIPs have been re-written to include all the stuff that our friendly regulator would like to have happen, and are now re-writing the regs to make non-compliance a criminal offence.

Conspiracy theory of the paranoid? Probably. 20 years in aviation will do that to a person....

[Lead Balloon]

The AIP has always been the depository (suppository?) of the occasional legally unsupported strong opinion. One of the more prominent recent examples was the Mildura airport operator modifying the YMIA ERSA entry to purport to ban glider flights above the airport and ballooning and aerobatics within 5 nm. Minor issue was that the ban was not backed by any lawful exercise of power.

It was also interesting watching what used to be GAAPs being slowly AIP’d back into GAAPs after the transition to what was supposed to be ‘pure’ Class D. Before that there was the occasional outbreak of ‘clearance required before taxiing’ in GAAPs that had to be eradicated by complaint to Reg Meissner.

There is pervading folklore to the effect that merely putting stuff in AIP makes it a binding rule. But that’s not how it works.

The stuff in CARs and CASRs and CAOs (and MOSs and exemptions and approvals ect) is, simply as a consequence of the regulatory ‘reform’ paradigm, just an expression of the strong opinions of people in CASA. That’s not a conspiracy theory: it’s what the paradigm dictates. That’s one of the reasons for the regulatory dog’s breakfast that’s been produced and will continue to be produced, for ever.

[LeFrenchKiwi]

The more I read about the rules being invented over there the more I appreciate the common sense approach of the NZ system (there’s a phrase I never thought I’d say). We welcome your application to rename Australia to West Island and adopt our rules