Basic Aeronautical Knowledge questions
Thread Starter
Back to BAK, although this is more about airworthiness administration….
Question: Does exceeding VNE have any potential consequences for the airworthiness of an aircraft (and, for the purposes of the question, assume the aircraft reaches VD)?
Question: If your answer to the first question is ‘no’, why do we care about VNE?
You are, hypothetically, the holder of the certificate of registration for and operator of an aircraft. You believe that a pilot you engaged flew the aircraft in excess of its VNE. The pilot denies the allegation but you don’t believe the pilot.
Question: What regulatory obligations are imposed on you, as the certificate of registration holder/operator of the aircraft, as soon as you form the belief that the aircraft was operated in excess of VNE and you know the pilot took no action because the pilot denies the allegation?
Bonus points question: What reporting obligation was imposed on you by section 19 of the Transport Safety Investigation Act 2003, as soon you formed the belief that the aircraft was operated in excess of VNE, noting that:
- you are a “responsible person” as defined in reg 13 of the TSI regs
- “operation outside the aircraft’s approved flight envelope” is on the list of routine reportable matters in reg 12 and VNE is an operating limitation within the definition of “approved flight envelope” in the TSI regs, and
- you know the pilot made no report to ATSB?
Question: Does exceeding VNE have any potential consequences for the airworthiness of an aircraft (and, for the purposes of the question, assume the aircraft reaches VD)?
Question: If your answer to the first question is ‘no’, why do we care about VNE?
You are, hypothetically, the holder of the certificate of registration for and operator of an aircraft. You believe that a pilot you engaged flew the aircraft in excess of its VNE. The pilot denies the allegation but you don’t believe the pilot.
Question: What regulatory obligations are imposed on you, as the certificate of registration holder/operator of the aircraft, as soon as you form the belief that the aircraft was operated in excess of VNE and you know the pilot took no action because the pilot denies the allegation?
Bonus points question: What reporting obligation was imposed on you by section 19 of the Transport Safety Investigation Act 2003, as soon you formed the belief that the aircraft was operated in excess of VNE, noting that:
- you are a “responsible person” as defined in reg 13 of the TSI regs
- “operation outside the aircraft’s approved flight envelope” is on the list of routine reportable matters in reg 12 and VNE is an operating limitation within the definition of “approved flight envelope” in the TSI regs, and
- you know the pilot made no report to ATSB?
I have exceeded maximum indicated speed a few times, every time was as a result of a sudden wind change in excess of 50 kts. The process I had to follow was simple, the event is annotated into the aircraft technical logbook as a defect, and an internal company report is filed as an aircraft limit is exceeded. In an airline environment the company notifies the appropriate authority based upon this report. That is part of the company safety management system.
The aircraft maintenance manual has a procedure for the exceedance, I would send the company an ACARS letting them know it happened so any preparations for the procedure is made prior to landing not to delay the next sector.
The aircraft maintenance manual has a procedure for the exceedance, I would send the company an ACARS letting them know it happened so any preparations for the procedure is made prior to landing not to delay the next sector.
Back to BAK, although this is more about airworthiness administration….
Question: Does exceeding VNE have any potential consequences for the airworthiness of an aircraft (and, for the purposes of the question, assume the aircraft reaches VD)?
Question: If your answer to the first question is ‘no’, why do we care about VNE?
You are, hypothetically, the holder of the certificate of registration for and operator of an aircraft. You believe that a pilot you engaged flew the aircraft in excess of its VNE. The pilot denies the allegation but you don’t believe the pilot.
Question: What regulatory obligations are imposed on you, as the certificate of registration holder/operator of the aircraft, as soon as you form the belief that the aircraft was operated in excess of VNE and you know the pilot took no action because the pilot denies the allegation?
Bonus points question: What reporting obligation was imposed on you by section 19 of the Transport Safety Investigation Act 2003, as soon you formed the belief that the aircraft was operated in excess of VNE, noting that:
- you are a “responsible person” as defined in reg 13 of the TSI regs
- “operation outside the aircraft’s approved flight envelope” is on the list of routine reportable matters in reg 12 and VNE is an operating limitation within the definition of “approved flight envelope” in the TSI regs, and
- you know the pilot made no report to ATSB?
Question: Does exceeding VNE have any potential consequences for the airworthiness of an aircraft (and, for the purposes of the question, assume the aircraft reaches VD)?
Question: If your answer to the first question is ‘no’, why do we care about VNE?
You are, hypothetically, the holder of the certificate of registration for and operator of an aircraft. You believe that a pilot you engaged flew the aircraft in excess of its VNE. The pilot denies the allegation but you don’t believe the pilot.
Question: What regulatory obligations are imposed on you, as the certificate of registration holder/operator of the aircraft, as soon as you form the belief that the aircraft was operated in excess of VNE and you know the pilot took no action because the pilot denies the allegation?
Bonus points question: What reporting obligation was imposed on you by section 19 of the Transport Safety Investigation Act 2003, as soon you formed the belief that the aircraft was operated in excess of VNE, noting that:
- you are a “responsible person” as defined in reg 13 of the TSI regs
- “operation outside the aircraft’s approved flight envelope” is on the list of routine reportable matters in reg 12 and VNE is an operating limitation within the definition of “approved flight envelope” in the TSI regs, and
- you know the pilot made no report to ATSB?
Moderator
I have exceeded maximum indicated speed a few times
Are you talking VNE, which is a pretty hard limit, or VNO, which may be exceeded for test or training purposes (as part of the design standard definition) ? If VNO, and a minor exceedance, I wouldn't lose any sleep at all.
Are you talking VNE, which is a pretty hard limit, or VNO, which may be exceeded for test or training purposes (as part of the design standard definition) ? If VNO, and a minor exceedance, I wouldn't lose any sleep at all.
I did not find the word "belief" in that TSI regulation.
In the US there is a standard approach called "void for vagueness" which means that a law or regulation cannot be decided by a typical person cannot be used. For example, laws about debris on lawns. Since a single leaf clipping from a grass blade is "debris" would a typical person decide to fine the offending homeowner over that? So they get badly drafted laws overturned on that basis.
In this case both the "belief" argument and standard of proof in the regulation are severely lacking. The regulation certainly implies the responsibility is on having direct and certain knowledge of the event's occurrence, which your hypothetical owner doesn't have.
The owner can certainly ground or scrap their own aircraft if they feel it is unsafe to operate. They can also refuse to allow access to the aircraft for that person. And it looks like they can go with their gut and report their belief. I presume they can also be sued for making a false accusation if there is no other proof of the event having happened.
But all of this is moot until a court rules on it, so you need to gain access to precedent cases to be sure or be willing to push a case through to a decision.
Best of luck with BLK. (Basic Legal Knowledge)
In the US there is a standard approach called "void for vagueness" which means that a law or regulation cannot be decided by a typical person cannot be used. For example, laws about debris on lawns. Since a single leaf clipping from a grass blade is "debris" would a typical person decide to fine the offending homeowner over that? So they get badly drafted laws overturned on that basis.
In this case both the "belief" argument and standard of proof in the regulation are severely lacking. The regulation certainly implies the responsibility is on having direct and certain knowledge of the event's occurrence, which your hypothetical owner doesn't have.
The owner can certainly ground or scrap their own aircraft if they feel it is unsafe to operate. They can also refuse to allow access to the aircraft for that person. And it looks like they can go with their gut and report their belief. I presume they can also be sued for making a false accusation if there is no other proof of the event having happened.
But all of this is moot until a court rules on it, so you need to gain access to precedent cases to be sure or be willing to push a case through to a decision.
Best of luck with BLK. (Basic Legal Knowledge)
Mate, when it comes to aviation in Australia v USA:
Australia was founded as a penal colony, recent events proved that Australia has not moved on from those roots. You won't find a country anywhere else in the world that enjoyed being locked down and treated like the future criminals that we are as much as Australians.
It's pertinent when discussing anything legal in Australia that "everything is illegal unless proven otherwise" including in a court of law. In the USA "everything is legal unless proven otherwise"
In Australia, people are scared of politicians, in USA politicians are afraid of the people.
Bear those in mind and you'll get a picture of aviation life in Australia.
Australia was founded as a penal colony, recent events proved that Australia has not moved on from those roots. You won't find a country anywhere else in the world that enjoyed being locked down and treated like the future criminals that we are as much as Australians.
It's pertinent when discussing anything legal in Australia that "everything is illegal unless proven otherwise" including in a court of law. In the USA "everything is legal unless proven otherwise"
In Australia, people are scared of politicians, in USA politicians are afraid of the people.
Bear those in mind and you'll get a picture of aviation life in Australia.
Mate, when it comes to aviation in Australia v USA:
Australia was founded as a penal colony, recent events proved that Australia has not moved on from those roots. You won't find a country anywhere else in the world that enjoyed being locked down and treated like the future criminals that we are as much as Australians.
It's pertinent when discussing anything legal in Australia that "everything is illegal unless proven otherwise" including in a court of law. In the USA "everything is legal unless proven otherwise"
In Australia, people are scared of politicians, in USA politicians are afraid of the people.
Bear those in mind and you'll get a picture of aviation life in Australia.
Australia was founded as a penal colony, recent events proved that Australia has not moved on from those roots. You won't find a country anywhere else in the world that enjoyed being locked down and treated like the future criminals that we are as much as Australians.
It's pertinent when discussing anything legal in Australia that "everything is illegal unless proven otherwise" including in a court of law. In the USA "everything is legal unless proven otherwise"
In Australia, people are scared of politicians, in USA politicians are afraid of the people.
Bear those in mind and you'll get a picture of aviation life in Australia.
What I recall is that the British descendants in Australia were on the later boats, not from the penal colonies, according to the British descendants in Australia. Not like the sense of pride in the US of having relatives from the Mayflower (a bunch of recalcitrants forced from Europe for being religious radicals trying to overthrow society.)
Thread Starter
Good and valid point.
I did not find the words “direct and certain” in that regulation. It seems you “implied” them into the regulation. Adding words to legislation is a bit of a ‘no no’ in statutory interpretation in Australia (based on my BLK).
Your interpretation would have some ostensibly odd consequences. A pilot can’t be “certain” s/he exceeded VNE (or VLE or VFE) because the IAS gauge has a margin of error and might have been temporarily malfunctioning. No reporting obligation to ATSB. And the COR holder/operator can throw the pilot under the prosecutorial bus for exceeding VNE (we were watching on Flightradar24 and we saw the aircraft groundspeed at 72 knots in excess of VNE, lock him up!) but not be under any airworthiness management or safety investigation reporting obligation because the COR holder/operator says it can’t be “certain”, on the basis of “direct” knowledge, that the exceedance ever happened. Those don’t seem to me to be outcomes that contribute positively to aviation safety.
I agree with your point that it’s ultimately up to courts to sort these questions out. And they will.
I’ll revise the questions.
Assume that one of the passengers in a nine seat aircraft is coincidentally qualified to be the PIC of the aircraft. On descent for landing, that passenger watches, with increasing alarm, as the ASI indication swings past VNE and settles at an indication 15 knots in excess of the VNE marking. The aircraft encounters turbulence on the descent. The passenger screams in the pilots ear: “Mate, you’re exceeding VNE and you’re gonna rip our wings off in this turbulence. Slow to VNO, now!” The pilot responds: “She’ll be right mate. I always fly her this way.” Fortunately, the aircraft makes an uneventful landing. The passenger is so concerned that she immediately writes down what she saw and said and heard, summarises her aeronautical qualifications and experience and gives a copy of that statement to the COR holder/operator and the aviation safety regulator.
What regulatory obligations (if any) are imposed on the COR holder/operator of the aircraft in relation to the airworthiness of the aircraft, as soon as it becomes aware of the contents of that statement?
What reporting obligation (if any) is imposed on the COR holder/operator by section 19 of the Transport Safety Investigation Act 2003, as soon as the COR holder/operator becomes aware of the contents of that statement?
What (if anything) should the aviation safety regulator do about the aircraft (assume the aviation safety regulator will refer a brief of evidence for prosecution of the pilot).
Your interpretation would have some ostensibly odd consequences. A pilot can’t be “certain” s/he exceeded VNE (or VLE or VFE) because the IAS gauge has a margin of error and might have been temporarily malfunctioning. No reporting obligation to ATSB. And the COR holder/operator can throw the pilot under the prosecutorial bus for exceeding VNE (we were watching on Flightradar24 and we saw the aircraft groundspeed at 72 knots in excess of VNE, lock him up!) but not be under any airworthiness management or safety investigation reporting obligation because the COR holder/operator says it can’t be “certain”, on the basis of “direct” knowledge, that the exceedance ever happened. Those don’t seem to me to be outcomes that contribute positively to aviation safety.
I agree with your point that it’s ultimately up to courts to sort these questions out. And they will.
I’ll revise the questions.
Assume that one of the passengers in a nine seat aircraft is coincidentally qualified to be the PIC of the aircraft. On descent for landing, that passenger watches, with increasing alarm, as the ASI indication swings past VNE and settles at an indication 15 knots in excess of the VNE marking. The aircraft encounters turbulence on the descent. The passenger screams in the pilots ear: “Mate, you’re exceeding VNE and you’re gonna rip our wings off in this turbulence. Slow to VNO, now!” The pilot responds: “She’ll be right mate. I always fly her this way.” Fortunately, the aircraft makes an uneventful landing. The passenger is so concerned that she immediately writes down what she saw and said and heard, summarises her aeronautical qualifications and experience and gives a copy of that statement to the COR holder/operator and the aviation safety regulator.
What regulatory obligations (if any) are imposed on the COR holder/operator of the aircraft in relation to the airworthiness of the aircraft, as soon as it becomes aware of the contents of that statement?
What reporting obligation (if any) is imposed on the COR holder/operator by section 19 of the Transport Safety Investigation Act 2003, as soon as the COR holder/operator becomes aware of the contents of that statement?
What (if anything) should the aviation safety regulator do about the aircraft (assume the aviation safety regulator will refer a brief of evidence for prosecution of the pilot).
