Avcharges Evasion?
One thing that used to astound me was that most of the fish CASA fried threw themselves into the boat. Enjoy your licence while you can.
Oh that’s right, I forgot you used to work for CASA.
Here’s what’s going to happen, Squawk:
1. IFR pilots submit numerous reports to ATSB about VFR pilots cruising at IFR levels (and maybe in the transition layer).
2. ATSB passes on aircraft callsign and day/time information to CASA.
3. CASA does a little bit of digging and issues a notice to you, under CAR 1988 301, requiring you to surrender your pilot logbook. CASA uses these to work out you were the PIC of the aircraft the subject of the reports.
4. CASA gives you notice, under CAR 1988 299, requiring you to undergo a test of your knowledge of flight rules and procedures.
(4(a). Depending on the seriousness of CASA’s concerns, CASA might suspend your licence, under CAR 1988 265, until you have successfully completed the test at #4.)
I’d urge you to entertain the possibility - even the remote possibility - that CAR 1988 173 means what it says and that CASA interprets it to mean what it says.
1. IFR pilots submit numerous reports to ATSB about VFR pilots cruising at IFR levels (and maybe in the transition layer).
2. ATSB passes on aircraft callsign and day/time information to CASA.
3. CASA does a little bit of digging and issues a notice to you, under CAR 1988 301, requiring you to surrender your pilot logbook. CASA uses these to work out you were the PIC of the aircraft the subject of the reports.
4. CASA gives you notice, under CAR 1988 299, requiring you to undergo a test of your knowledge of flight rules and procedures.
(4(a). Depending on the seriousness of CASA’s concerns, CASA might suspend your licence, under CAR 1988 265, until you have successfully completed the test at #4.)
I’d urge you to entertain the possibility - even the remote possibility - that CAR 1988 173 means what it says and that CASA interprets it to mean what it says.
And if there is something in yr log book....even way back,.that may incriminate you, nothing to do with the case in hand...do you tug the forelock and comply with the 301 demand ?
Doesnt the law say that you do not have to incriminate yourself.; by statement, written or verbal ?
CAsA WILL trawl back thru yr book and should an entry line be incomplete or blank ..LOOK OUT !
If you want to chuck yr money away...much cheaper to relax with a smoke in the airliner dunny.!
Doesnt the law say that you do not have to incriminate yourself.; by statement, written or verbal ?
CAsA WILL trawl back thru yr book and should an entry line be incomplete or blank ..LOOK OUT !
If you want to chuck yr money away...much cheaper to relax with a smoke in the airliner dunny.!
Pilots - in particular new instructors - were largely left to themselves to interpret requirements.
You make it sound like they make it up as they go along.
As for other pilots, it would have been explained in their training how to choose a level and why. Basic stuff.
So how do you explain:
and
With those around since the 60's, I suggest the latter re the state of the instructing system is a pretty widespread view.
Indeed. Just goes to show that despite a couple of decades of ‘reform’ and ‘simplification’, fundamental rules that have been in place for half a century (with a slight hiccup from quandrantal to hemisphical in Australia) seem to escape some of the people produced by this wonderfully ‘safe’ ‘system’.
A while ago I was shooting the breeze with a private pilot who was scratching his head about an interaction he’d had in the air with a QantasLink pilot about the ‘transition layer’. I had to explain what the transition layer is and why he wasn’t supposed to have cruised in it...
I don’t think it’s about the absence of briefing offices, CM. I think it’s more about the slow mediocritization of the instructing system.
I don’t think it’s about the absence of briefing offices, CM. I think it’s more about the slow mediocritization of the instructing system.
This might be a clue as to a source of the problem:
Part of the art of instructing is the ability to distinguish between wheat and chaff and impart an understanding of the relative importance of each. I suspect that these days it’s mostly: Open wide, here comes a fire hose full of stuff to regurgitate at test time.
[A] CFI who is burdened with enough manuals and syllabi to sink a small boat. That paperwork explains how and what will be taught.
This might be a clue as to a source of the problem:Part of the art of instructing is the ability to distinguish between wheat and chaff and impart an understanding of the relative importance of each. I suspect that these days it’s mostly: Open wide, here comes a fire hose full of stuff to regurgitate at test time.
And all in a "pingya" format for teaching/instructing "compliance", rather than teaching the fundamentals of flying.
The volume of CASA "show compliance" paperwork now generated, to do a job that has not fundamentally changed in may years, is just ridiculous.
Tootle pip!!
PINGYA : Do ------- "so they can't ping you" --- establish a non-compliance.
LB:
So to avoid punitive action by CASA, our VFR pilot files no flight plan, switches off the transponder, makes no radio calls and does their best to remain invisible, what a recipe for safe flight. I've encountered an RV pilot who virtually confessed to doing 'a bit of IFR" despite not being IFR rated, to get from A to B sometimes. He was relying on his whizz bang electronics and autopilot.
Here’s what’s going to happen, Squawk:
1. IFR pilots submit numerous reports to ATSB about VFR pilots cruising at IFR levels (and maybe in the transition layer).
2. ATSB passes on aircraft callsign and day/time information to CASA.
3. CASA does a little bit of digging and issues a notice to you, under CAR 1988 301, requiring you to surrender your pilot logbook. CASA uses these to work out you were the PIC of the aircraft the subject of the reports.
4. CASA gives you notice, under CAR 1988 299, requiring you to undergo a test of your knowledge of flight rules and procedures.
(4(a). Depending on the seriousness of CASA’s concerns, CASA might suspend your licence, under CAR 1988 265, until you have successfully completed the test at #4.)
I’d urge you to entertain the possibility - even the remote possibility - that CAR 1988 173 means what it says and that CASA interprets it to mean what it says.
1. IFR pilots submit numerous reports to ATSB about VFR pilots cruising at IFR levels (and maybe in the transition layer).
2. ATSB passes on aircraft callsign and day/time information to CASA.
3. CASA does a little bit of digging and issues a notice to you, under CAR 1988 301, requiring you to surrender your pilot logbook. CASA uses these to work out you were the PIC of the aircraft the subject of the reports.
4. CASA gives you notice, under CAR 1988 299, requiring you to undergo a test of your knowledge of flight rules and procedures.
(4(a). Depending on the seriousness of CASA’s concerns, CASA might suspend your licence, under CAR 1988 265, until you have successfully completed the test at #4.)
I’d urge you to entertain the possibility - even the remote possibility - that CAR 1988 173 means what it says and that CASA interprets it to mean what it says.
3.1.2 Within controlled airspace, ATC may assign and pilots may request a level that does not accord with the tables in Section 5.
3.1.2.1 Pilots must only request a level not conforming to the table of cruising levels when it is determined by the pilot in command to be essential to the safety of the flight and its occupants. In such circumstances, the phrase "DUE OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENT" must be included with the level change request.
3.1.3 ATC will only assign cruising level s not conforming to these tables when traffic or other operational circumstances require.
3.1.2.1 Pilots must only request a level not conforming to the table of cruising levels when it is determined by the pilot in command to be essential to the safety of the flight and its occupants. In such circumstances, the phrase "DUE OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENT" must be included with the level change request.
3.1.3 ATC will only assign cruising level s not conforming to these tables when traffic or other operational circumstances require.
LB:
So to avoid punitive action by CASA, our VFR pilot files no flight plan, switches off the transponder, makes no radio calls and does their best to remain invisible, what a recipe for safe flight. I've encountered an RV pilot who virtually confessed to doing 'a bit of IFR" despite not being IFR rated, to get from A to B sometimes. He was relying on his whizz bang electronics and autopilot.
So to avoid punitive action by CASA, our VFR pilot files no flight plan, switches off the transponder, makes no radio calls and does their best to remain invisible, what a recipe for safe flight. I've encountered an RV pilot who virtually confessed to doing 'a bit of IFR" despite not being IFR rated, to get from A to B sometimes. He was relying on his whizz bang electronics and autopilot.
I also seem to recall reading a lament in the crash comics (back when we had them), that the rate of fatalities caused by flight into IFR conditions by pilots and/or aircraft unqualified for the task seemed to remain at a constant rate irrespective of how many articles about how that often turns out that were published over the years in the digest.
I think it also mentioned a similar issue with pilots suffering fuel exhaustion (again despite the number of articles published).
I sometimes wonder when we comment about the lack of airmanship and pilotage skills exhibited by the newer generation of GA pilots and when we criticise the poor standard of today's instruction and instructors, we may be looking through rose coloured glasses when comparing it to the good old days.
I suspect in GA that poor judgement, a lacking of skills and knowledge and poor airmanship are not things that have only just appeared.
And if there is something in yr log book....even way back,.that may incriminate you, nothing to do with the case in hand...do you tug the forelock and comply with the 301 demand ?
Doesnt the law say that you do not have to incriminate yourself.; by statement, written or verbal ?
CAsA WILL trawl back thru yr book and should an entry line be incomplete or blank ..LOOK OUT !
If you want to chuck yr money away...much cheaper to relax with a smoke in the airliner dunny.!
Doesnt the law say that you do not have to incriminate yourself.; by statement, written or verbal ?
CAsA WILL trawl back thru yr book and should an entry line be incomplete or blank ..LOOK OUT !
If you want to chuck yr money away...much cheaper to relax with a smoke in the airliner dunny.!
Many years ago, a lawyer whose time on earth has long since expired, used to advise "losing a long book", because a log book not produced to order was a lower potential penalty than having a "falsified" (to CASA definition) log book.
Tootle pip!!
