CASA going overboard again
I would highly recommend that you give a little more consideration to that approach as detailed above for regulatory accuracy.
Tootle pip!!
Thread Starter
Sorry Lead, I don't speak in Riddles. If I look out of my window at home, look at the windsock on the farm strip, do me pre flight , take off and land at my neighbours eight miles away, why do I need to log on to NAIPS??
You don’t, You’re not leaving the vicinity of your airstrip so no need to log into NAIPS to get weather or anything else.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not sure there is any legal requirement to log on to NAIPS. You could read over the shoulder of your mate as he reads his briefing, view a printed forecast pinned on the wall within its validity period, receive a briefing from your company etc.
The idea that no login to NAIPS proves anything is a bit of a stretch.
The idea that no login to NAIPS proves anything is a bit of a stretch.
All available information “appropriate”.............. NAIPS is pretty comprehensive. You can always get it then not bother to read it. Personally I am a believer in Murphy’s law.
It’s not mandatory to log in to NAIPS pre flight but you must have the appropriate info for your flight. More than likely sourced from NAIPS of course. As Andrewr suggests it could of been printed and placed on the notice board or handed to you as you arrive ( like it used to be at the briefing office )
If you actually read what I wrote, I didn't say you had to log in to NAIPS. What I did say, in words that you didn't understand, is that there are regulatory requirements for pre-flight information, and you should understand what applies, how much or how little, to your flight. CAR 233 is still on the books.
Tootle pip!!
PS: "In the vicinity"? Among the sundry criteria, "Vicinity" has a specific definition, really only applicable to met, re. preflight data ( see CAR 239)--- unless something that I have missed has been hidden in Part 91 etc., which is entirely possible.
Last edited by LeadSled; 24th Apr 2019 at 04:20.
CIVIL AVIATION REGULATIONS 1988 - REG 239
Planning of flight by pilot in command
(1) Before beginning a flight, the pilot in command shall study all available information appropriate to the intended operation, and, in the cases of flights away from the vicinity of an aerodrome and all I.F.R. flights, shall make a careful study of:
(a) current weather reports and forecasts for the route to be followed and at aerodromes to be used;
(b) the airways facilities available on the route to be followed and the condition of those facilities;
(c) the condition of aerodromes to be used and their suitability for the aircraft to be used; and
(d) the air traffic control rules and procedure appertaining to the particular flight;
and the pilot shall plan the flight in relation to the information obtained.
CIVIL AVIATION REGULATIONS 1988 - REG 166
Definitions for Subdivision 2
(1) In this Subdivision:
"in the vicinity of " , in relation to a non-controlled aerodrome, has the meaning given by subregulation (2).
(2) An aircraft is in the vicinity of a non-controlled aerodrome if it is within:
(a) airspace other than controlled airspace; and
(b) 10 miles from the aerodrome; and
(c) a height above the aerodrome that could result in conflict with operations at the aerodrome.
Planning of flight by pilot in command
(1) Before beginning a flight, the pilot in command shall study all available information appropriate to the intended operation, and, in the cases of flights away from the vicinity of an aerodrome and all I.F.R. flights, shall make a careful study of:
(a) current weather reports and forecasts for the route to be followed and at aerodromes to be used;
(b) the airways facilities available on the route to be followed and the condition of those facilities;
(c) the condition of aerodromes to be used and their suitability for the aircraft to be used; and
(d) the air traffic control rules and procedure appertaining to the particular flight;
and the pilot shall plan the flight in relation to the information obtained.
CIVIL AVIATION REGULATIONS 1988 - REG 166
Definitions for Subdivision 2
(1) In this Subdivision:
"in the vicinity of " , in relation to a non-controlled aerodrome, has the meaning given by subregulation (2).
(2) An aircraft is in the vicinity of a non-controlled aerodrome if it is within:
(a) airspace other than controlled airspace; and
(b) 10 miles from the aerodrome; and
(c) a height above the aerodrome that could result in conflict with operations at the aerodrome.
zanthrus,
Tell that to the next FOI you come across, it should be worth a solid fine and a few demerit points. Or try it on, on your next flight review.
And don't look out the window and report on behalf of another pilot, that's a different criminal offense.
Tootle pip!!
PS: Genuine question, I so far have not made any attempt to work through it, but what is the legal status of "observations" you obtain from weather cameras?? You guys installing them, what is your view.
Tell that to the next FOI you come across, it should be worth a solid fine and a few demerit points. Or try it on, on your next flight review.
And don't look out the window and report on behalf of another pilot, that's a different criminal offense.
Tootle pip!!
PS: Genuine question, I so far have not made any attempt to work through it, but what is the legal status of "observations" you obtain from weather cameras?? You guys installing them, what is your view.
I suspect CASA would say that weather camera data does not obviate or replace the CAR & AIP requirements before flight to check ".... current weather reports and forecasts" etc.
i The problem here is that the regulations again are not specific. Both CASA and the average pilot could drive a truck through the meaning of 239: “all available appropriate....... intended” then of course there’s the situation where there are no communication facilities and the aircraft has no radio. What then?
I suppose the newspaper forecast might have to do, or the proverbial string.
Why doesn’t CASA frame the rules in terms of desired outcomes? I mean having the forecast and NOTAMS doesn’t mean the pilot understands them.
Then of course we have approved sources. If I have a forecast that says CAVOK, can I legally take off in the face of a thunderstorm? I mean, if I’m not an approved observer is the thunderstorm not there? Do we only divert for “approved” thunderstorms?
Plato: Just because a fool says the sun is shining doesn’t make it dark outside” ........except to CASA. (theban plays)
I suppose the newspaper forecast might have to do, or the proverbial string.
Why doesn’t CASA frame the rules in terms of desired outcomes? I mean having the forecast and NOTAMS doesn’t mean the pilot understands them.
Then of course we have approved sources. If I have a forecast that says CAVOK, can I legally take off in the face of a thunderstorm? I mean, if I’m not an approved observer is the thunderstorm not there? Do we only divert for “approved” thunderstorms?
Plato: Just because a fool says the sun is shining doesn’t make it dark outside” ........except to CASA. (theban plays)
I can remember being in Canberra with CASA telling us that they were now enamoured of EASA being "worlds best practice" instead of FAA and would be developing outcome-based regulations .... then we got more prescripotive regulations with more to come.
Part 91 is coming soon so my advice is to look at what's in there.
Part 91 is coming soon so my advice is to look at what's in there.
The use of cameras when airborne could give a false sense of security and could be described as somewhat fool-hardy.... but... it could one day save your life when looking for an alternate or similar.
The key is in carefully checking the timestamps, just like you would on a weather forecast.
Cameras are about as useful as a weather forecast.
