Horsham Court Case - the outcome ?
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Emerald, Vic, Aust
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AGREE ENTIRELY
Bill
Funny, when you and I disagree we do it violently but when we agree it is 100%. We certainly agree here.
No matter what input CASA had from AOPA or anyone to the Flight Manual proposal, CASA must take 100% responsibility for the ultimate Regulation introduced.
Therefore, and I certainly appreciate that you had the foresight to see the ultimate risk but did not have a way to prevent it, CASA - certainly not AOPA - must take the ultimate responsibility for three things:
1. Bringing in a Regulation that does not require W&B and T/O and LDG charts to be kept in an aircraft in the "NO AFM Category".
2. Having the gap brought to their attention but refusing to budge from their position (this seems an enforced militaristic organisational trait).
3. Knowing that W&B and T/O & LDG issues have been the cause of fatalities in the past and now more likely in the future due to the omission. And, aircraft like the C172M are still in both training and on'line hire mode, thus making the risk even greater than single owner flying.
Although an owner can decide to keep a folder - clearly marked by decree as "Notes" but not under any circumstances "Flight Manual" - with the data, does it not strike any "reasonable man" as amazing that the Regulator is allowing owner discretion in such a serious matter with a recognised fatality link, yet pulling the licence permanently of someone who flew without a medical (I thought it might be worth a reminder to us all of how this thread started).
For those browsing this Forum, have a think about how many questions there are in the PPL exam on "medicals" versus how many on "T/O and LDG CHarts" and "W&B" calculations - and I think the one if any medical is a one point score, the others numerous and 2 and 3 pointers.
No matter how Creamy tries to water this one down with his distinct political, legislative, and communication skills, I don't think he can turn it into a winner for CASA.
Cheers (good luck tonight)
Funny, when you and I disagree we do it violently but when we agree it is 100%. We certainly agree here.
No matter what input CASA had from AOPA or anyone to the Flight Manual proposal, CASA must take 100% responsibility for the ultimate Regulation introduced.
Therefore, and I certainly appreciate that you had the foresight to see the ultimate risk but did not have a way to prevent it, CASA - certainly not AOPA - must take the ultimate responsibility for three things:
1. Bringing in a Regulation that does not require W&B and T/O and LDG charts to be kept in an aircraft in the "NO AFM Category".
2. Having the gap brought to their attention but refusing to budge from their position (this seems an enforced militaristic organisational trait).
3. Knowing that W&B and T/O & LDG issues have been the cause of fatalities in the past and now more likely in the future due to the omission. And, aircraft like the C172M are still in both training and on'line hire mode, thus making the risk even greater than single owner flying.
Although an owner can decide to keep a folder - clearly marked by decree as "Notes" but not under any circumstances "Flight Manual" - with the data, does it not strike any "reasonable man" as amazing that the Regulator is allowing owner discretion in such a serious matter with a recognised fatality link, yet pulling the licence permanently of someone who flew without a medical (I thought it might be worth a reminder to us all of how this thread started).
For those browsing this Forum, have a think about how many questions there are in the PPL exam on "medicals" versus how many on "T/O and LDG CHarts" and "W&B" calculations - and I think the one if any medical is a one point score, the others numerous and 2 and 3 pointers.
No matter how Creamy tries to water this one down with his distinct political, legislative, and communication skills, I don't think he can turn it into a winner for CASA.
Cheers (good luck tonight)
This thread has ended up on one of my favourite subjects - flight manuals. Last August I put the following to CASA:
Just recently CASA responded with
It was disappointing that there was no interest in resolving the technical query and no interest in advising other Decathlon operators of the issue. The clear message I got was that CASA will not stand behind those P Charts - they are now obsolete. I'm not happy that I'm taking sole responsibility for providing adequate perfomance data to pilots. Firstly, I'm not going to let pilots fly per the POM with an approach speed only 13% above stall. I'm not going to let them fly into strips as short as that given by the old P Charts. I wonder why the P Chart has a 10% higher take-off safety speed than the manufacturer's data, which is 1.2 times stall speed.
The good news for other aircraft types is that the P Charts are generally more conservative and more appropriate but it is the operator's decision and the operator takes responsibility for it.
Referring to an earlier post here - I have seen examples of the P Charts being inserted into AFM's, reportedly per CASA advice.
The W&B aspects of the new AFM's often do not hang together too well as another noted previously. There is a regulation somewhere to the effect that we must follow the procedures in the AFM. i.e. the old loading system from the superseded Australian manual must not be used. The actual empty weight is required of course, then we must use the loading system from the "new" official AFM which generally means converting to lbs and ins.
So, having got my "new" AFM I'm still trying to sort out all the information and this is probably the most simple airplane in the country. The next thing I've just noticed is that an Australian AD was issued back in 1973 which conflicts with information in the new AFM. Please be patient with me, I'll research it a bit more and suggest an appropriate course of action.
The issue is that the Australian P-chart gives significantly shorter distances than the Bellanca Pilot's Operating Manual for the same set of conditions. To do the comparison required consideration of the differences between the two sets of data:
- operation from a sealed surface vs short, dry grass for the Australian P-chart;
- acceleration to the higher take-off safety speed required by the Australian P-chart;
- lower climb gradient of the Australian P-chart resulting from climb at airspeed higher than speed for best angle of climb.
The discrepancy is not covered by the 1.15 factor on the Australian P-chart and is significantly greater than the margin offered by this extra 15% of distance.
If the Bellanca POM provides unfactored, reasonably accurate data then the Australian P-chart, even with that 1.15 factor, represents unsafe data. At I.S.A., S.L. with take-off distance available as per the Australian P-chart, the manufacturer's data indicates that the aircraft will hit the "15.2m high screen" at about 3 m below the top. The reason an accident has not occurred may be that no pilot has attempted a take-off in such limiting conditions. It may never happen but ....
- operation from a sealed surface vs short, dry grass for the Australian P-chart;
- acceleration to the higher take-off safety speed required by the Australian P-chart;
- lower climb gradient of the Australian P-chart resulting from climb at airspeed higher than speed for best angle of climb.
The discrepancy is not covered by the 1.15 factor on the Australian P-chart and is significantly greater than the margin offered by this extra 15% of distance.
If the Bellanca POM provides unfactored, reasonably accurate data then the Australian P-chart, even with that 1.15 factor, represents unsafe data. At I.S.A., S.L. with take-off distance available as per the Australian P-chart, the manufacturer's data indicates that the aircraft will hit the "15.2m high screen" at about 3 m below the top. The reason an accident has not occurred may be that no pilot has attempted a take-off in such limiting conditions. It may never happen but ....
The AFM consistent with the airplane and any manufacturer's data should be used. There is a proviso as discussed. If one had perf data more conservative than the manufacturers then it would be possible to use that. At all times the AFM must reflect the aircraft configuration i.e Manufacturers AFM + FMS for changes.
The good news for other aircraft types is that the P Charts are generally more conservative and more appropriate but it is the operator's decision and the operator takes responsibility for it.
Referring to an earlier post here - I have seen examples of the P Charts being inserted into AFM's, reportedly per CASA advice.
The W&B aspects of the new AFM's often do not hang together too well as another noted previously. There is a regulation somewhere to the effect that we must follow the procedures in the AFM. i.e. the old loading system from the superseded Australian manual must not be used. The actual empty weight is required of course, then we must use the loading system from the "new" official AFM which generally means converting to lbs and ins.
So, having got my "new" AFM I'm still trying to sort out all the information and this is probably the most simple airplane in the country. The next thing I've just noticed is that an Australian AD was issued back in 1973 which conflicts with information in the new AFM. Please be patient with me, I'll research it a bit more and suggest an appropriate course of action.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Emerald, Vic, Aust
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MORE PLEASE DJ
DJ
You are lucky - at least you have an AFM. We "of the never never" only have placards (not including W&B or P) and it is hard for hirers to take the aircraft home to study the placards before flying!!!!! On the other hand, if we give them the "unauthorised" data, we are legally vulnerable if something goes wrong.
Be interested to see how your further research goes.
Your findings to date reflect mine - even where a potential risk to life is identified, there is a refusal to con.sdider how to act to fill the safety gap.
I suppose, on the brighter bureaucratic side, we would not want CASA to do the ATSB out of business. Safe skies for (nearly) all!
Cheers
You are lucky - at least you have an AFM. We "of the never never" only have placards (not including W&B or P) and it is hard for hirers to take the aircraft home to study the placards before flying!!!!! On the other hand, if we give them the "unauthorised" data, we are legally vulnerable if something goes wrong.
Be interested to see how your further research goes.
Your findings to date reflect mine - even where a potential risk to life is identified, there is a refusal to con.sdider how to act to fill the safety gap.
I suppose, on the brighter bureaucratic side, we would not want CASA to do the ATSB out of business. Safe skies for (nearly) all!
Cheers
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Creampuff,
Now normally I tend to agree with your usually reasoned and well thought out arguments but I’m afraid it is patently obvious you have no real understanding of the pressures and responsibilities befitting the aeronautically endowed. However, I think our mate Pikey and others are barking up the wrong regulatory tree in terms of testing the resolve and jurisdiction of the regulator.
Personally, I don’t have a problem with keeping my medical up to date (Tip- acquire a notifiable disease and the reminders come not only thick and fast but free) but in terms of nonsensical regulations being arbitrarily imposed upon law abiding, gun toting members of the aviation community this is but one example.
The one regulation which epitomises the heavy handed and ridiculous approach CASA take when over regulating the simple folk is that which prevents me from participating in my constitutional right to fly simply because I may or may not have knocked the top off one or six relaxing (as I am required to do under CAO 48) drinks within the previous eight hours. Entrapment and restraint of trade (certainly as far as the Pub is concerned) are but a few defences that come to mind.
I mean, how utterly absurd to suggest that a mere mortal such as I (though gifted in all things aviation) should somehow be capable of knowing when I last partook of the Square Bear. Talk about unworkable! At the time when my faculties have deserted me I am expected to calculate, with mathematical precision, the moment (local converted to utc and daylight saving) at which I last delved into the black elixir of life.
Never the less, as a RESPONSIBLE member of the aviation community, I understand the necessity of ensuring one’s dexterity is sufficient prior to acting as the winged Coach Captain to the great unwashed. To that end (and with thanks to WF “Bill” for demonstrating the principle) I judiciously impose a self test upon myself before taking flight. If I am capable of driving my trusty (now unregistered – again thanks for the guidance Bill) ute not only home but also to the airport, without discolouring the asphalt with last night’s dinner (that’s what those little bags are for in the a/c seat pockets are they not) surely I am fit to carry out what the aeronautically challenged cannot.
Now until such time as the Boffins can find a way of notifying me of the time at which I ceased to slurp (a text message from a personal chaperone would suffice) I see no justification or responsibility for complying with this preposterous impost.
And while we’re rewriting CASA duty statements, I find getting the weather and flight planning just a tad on the tiresome side (it’s a faculty thing again). Maybe we could have some nice folk stationed throughout the country to assist me should I decide to exercise said privilege. Oh, and for Snarek, someone to personally deliver QNH on demand would be a nice gesture.
Vague recollections of such a system which was disembowelled by “one” and ably assisted by an association!
But of course all at “no cost” because “I ain’t gunna pay for it”!
“Flying free from responsibility”. Beautiful!!
Now normally I tend to agree with your usually reasoned and well thought out arguments but I’m afraid it is patently obvious you have no real understanding of the pressures and responsibilities befitting the aeronautically endowed. However, I think our mate Pikey and others are barking up the wrong regulatory tree in terms of testing the resolve and jurisdiction of the regulator.
Personally, I don’t have a problem with keeping my medical up to date (Tip- acquire a notifiable disease and the reminders come not only thick and fast but free) but in terms of nonsensical regulations being arbitrarily imposed upon law abiding, gun toting members of the aviation community this is but one example.
The one regulation which epitomises the heavy handed and ridiculous approach CASA take when over regulating the simple folk is that which prevents me from participating in my constitutional right to fly simply because I may or may not have knocked the top off one or six relaxing (as I am required to do under CAO 48) drinks within the previous eight hours. Entrapment and restraint of trade (certainly as far as the Pub is concerned) are but a few defences that come to mind.
I mean, how utterly absurd to suggest that a mere mortal such as I (though gifted in all things aviation) should somehow be capable of knowing when I last partook of the Square Bear. Talk about unworkable! At the time when my faculties have deserted me I am expected to calculate, with mathematical precision, the moment (local converted to utc and daylight saving) at which I last delved into the black elixir of life.
Never the less, as a RESPONSIBLE member of the aviation community, I understand the necessity of ensuring one’s dexterity is sufficient prior to acting as the winged Coach Captain to the great unwashed. To that end (and with thanks to WF “Bill” for demonstrating the principle) I judiciously impose a self test upon myself before taking flight. If I am capable of driving my trusty (now unregistered – again thanks for the guidance Bill) ute not only home but also to the airport, without discolouring the asphalt with last night’s dinner (that’s what those little bags are for in the a/c seat pockets are they not) surely I am fit to carry out what the aeronautically challenged cannot.
Now until such time as the Boffins can find a way of notifying me of the time at which I ceased to slurp (a text message from a personal chaperone would suffice) I see no justification or responsibility for complying with this preposterous impost.
And while we’re rewriting CASA duty statements, I find getting the weather and flight planning just a tad on the tiresome side (it’s a faculty thing again). Maybe we could have some nice folk stationed throughout the country to assist me should I decide to exercise said privilege. Oh, and for Snarek, someone to personally deliver QNH on demand would be a nice gesture.
Vague recollections of such a system which was disembowelled by “one” and ably assisted by an association!
But of course all at “no cost” because “I ain’t gunna pay for it”!
“Flying free from responsibility”. Beautiful!!
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: uppercumbuktawest
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Brianh
Sorry for the delay in replying.
"MUST" does not a rule make.
If it doesn't have head of power in the regs it doesn't mean diddly squat.
The AIP is an aeronautical INFORMATION publication, and as such a fair chunk of the scribblings in it are just that INFORMATION.
People seem to not realise that unless there is a regulation to empower the AIP statement it has no legal standing.
ie if CASA tried to take action against you for say doing night assymetrics - they could not use the AIP provisions against you as they do not have head of power - if you had an AOC they would probably trot out good ole section 28 of the act.
The point I am making is you made the statement about people breaking the law if they don't put the aerodrome name at both ends of the transmission - the reality is that if they don't they are NOT breaking the law, because there is NO LAW that says that they must do so.
Sorry for the delay in replying.
"MUST" does not a rule make.
If it doesn't have head of power in the regs it doesn't mean diddly squat.
The AIP is an aeronautical INFORMATION publication, and as such a fair chunk of the scribblings in it are just that INFORMATION.
People seem to not realise that unless there is a regulation to empower the AIP statement it has no legal standing.
ie if CASA tried to take action against you for say doing night assymetrics - they could not use the AIP provisions against you as they do not have head of power - if you had an AOC they would probably trot out good ole section 28 of the act.
The point I am making is you made the statement about people breaking the law if they don't put the aerodrome name at both ends of the transmission - the reality is that if they don't they are NOT breaking the law, because there is NO LAW that says that they must do so.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Emerald, Vic, Aust
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'M STANDING BY MY COMMENT
Capn Laptop
Welcome back. We are going to differ on this one.
Best I correct any misconception held by other readers of this Forum. I add that I’m having withdrawal symptoms of Creampuff – if he was here I am sure he could quote the substantiation in even more detail.
I draw everyone’s attention to the AIPs.
Specifically Page GEN 0.1 – 2, Last revision 9 Aug 01, Paragraph 4.6, as below:
(Capitals are mine, just for emphasis).
4.6 “Throughout the AIP the term “should” implies that all users are ENCOURAGED to conform with the applicable procedure. The terms “must” and “shall” are synonymous and mean that the applicable procedure is MANDATORY and supported by REGULATIONS or ORDERS.”
I am not prepared to fight CASA on this one. If they say it is supported by Regs or Orders, I am not going to breach the AIP “Must” and be the test case. Just because they do not quote the head of power against every item in the AIP (it is meant to bea reader friendly publication) doesn't mean that they won't find it when we are tied to the shooting stake! They do have some expertise in that regard.
Therefore, I stand by my original comment.
PS just got the latest QBE Avlinks - notice they are reporting on the FLOT conference strongly re punitive measures proposed in the regulations "with the inclusion of strict liability penalties there is a very real threat that safety reporting will be compromised and flight safety in general will be jeopardised". Oh where are the safer skies of yesteryear!
Cheers
Welcome back. We are going to differ on this one.
Best I correct any misconception held by other readers of this Forum. I add that I’m having withdrawal symptoms of Creampuff – if he was here I am sure he could quote the substantiation in even more detail.
I draw everyone’s attention to the AIPs.
Specifically Page GEN 0.1 – 2, Last revision 9 Aug 01, Paragraph 4.6, as below:
(Capitals are mine, just for emphasis).
4.6 “Throughout the AIP the term “should” implies that all users are ENCOURAGED to conform with the applicable procedure. The terms “must” and “shall” are synonymous and mean that the applicable procedure is MANDATORY and supported by REGULATIONS or ORDERS.”
I am not prepared to fight CASA on this one. If they say it is supported by Regs or Orders, I am not going to breach the AIP “Must” and be the test case. Just because they do not quote the head of power against every item in the AIP (it is meant to bea reader friendly publication) doesn't mean that they won't find it when we are tied to the shooting stake! They do have some expertise in that regard.
Therefore, I stand by my original comment.
PS just got the latest QBE Avlinks - notice they are reporting on the FLOT conference strongly re punitive measures proposed in the regulations "with the inclusion of strict liability penalties there is a very real threat that safety reporting will be compromised and flight safety in general will be jeopardised". Oh where are the safer skies of yesteryear!
Cheers
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: melb.vic.aust.
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Horsham court case
brianH - just read the ASA site - thanks for directing me to it. Don't like the bit where you give up the right to make up your own mind whether or not to offer support to a member in a particular circumstance. At least I know what angle you are now coming from - you have no choice except to support a member, even when they have done the wrong thing! If you do support a member who has broken the rules, is he then dealt with by ASA behind closed doors? (you know, a bit like when the tribal elders dish out punishment for an aborigine that has broken the white mans law but is dealt with by the tribal elders). Or does the member just get off scott free?
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Emerald, Vic, Aust
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DON'T GO TO THE RACES THIS WEEK
Tealady
You are not having much luck at the moment; don't buy a lotto ticket or back a horse this week - you'll do you dough!
In answer to your question - I'll kindly call it that instead of a criticism/attack - I refused to join ASA first time around for that very reason - I reserve the right to make up my OWN mind and be independent.
When they found out my rationale, I was invited to cross out the parts I did not accept, initial them to confirm it was me doing the crossing out, and submit an application modified as I saw fit.
I did, and was accepted on those terms. That, my friend, is democracy and freedom - as distinct from what is happening to our colleague at Horsham via the organisation you are supporting as a consequence of criticising ASA and individuals like myself who suggest that the French legal system is innapropriate for Australia.
Below is a direct copy from the CASA site.
"Variation, Suspension and Cancellation
CASA's role is to protect aviation safety, and its powers to vary, suspend and cancel licences, certificates and authorities must be seen in this light. The purpose of suspension or cancellation action is to 'remove a threat to aviation safety'.
Prosecution
CASA should investigate with a view to referring the matter to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), any contraventions that:
are deliberate and serious or that demonstrate a reckless disregard of the safety rules;
are part of a pattern of similar contraventions by the same individual or organisation;
involve knowing or reckless breaches of the Civil Aviation Act; or
seriously endanger the safety of persons other than the person committing the contravention."
We can deduce from the first part that the cancellation of our colleague would be litmus tested against 'to remove a threat to aviation safety'.
Yet nowhere yet have I seen this aspect tested in a Court of Law to verify that a genuine threat existed. Of course, if it did, and others were jeopardised, it seems that CASA would have to move to prosecution on the basis of 'knowing or reckless breaches' or seriously endangering the safety of other persons. Perhaps the Horsham court situation is exactly that - I don't know.
But, I stand by my earlier comment - let him FIRST have a fair trial, then - and only then - off with his head if he is guilty.
I think, as an old bureaucrat, I can find my original modified application and fax you a copy if you need reassurance - provided the fax hasn't faded away to nowt!
Cheers
You are not having much luck at the moment; don't buy a lotto ticket or back a horse this week - you'll do you dough!
In answer to your question - I'll kindly call it that instead of a criticism/attack - I refused to join ASA first time around for that very reason - I reserve the right to make up my OWN mind and be independent.
When they found out my rationale, I was invited to cross out the parts I did not accept, initial them to confirm it was me doing the crossing out, and submit an application modified as I saw fit.
I did, and was accepted on those terms. That, my friend, is democracy and freedom - as distinct from what is happening to our colleague at Horsham via the organisation you are supporting as a consequence of criticising ASA and individuals like myself who suggest that the French legal system is innapropriate for Australia.
Below is a direct copy from the CASA site.
"Variation, Suspension and Cancellation
CASA's role is to protect aviation safety, and its powers to vary, suspend and cancel licences, certificates and authorities must be seen in this light. The purpose of suspension or cancellation action is to 'remove a threat to aviation safety'.
Prosecution
CASA should investigate with a view to referring the matter to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), any contraventions that:
are deliberate and serious or that demonstrate a reckless disregard of the safety rules;
are part of a pattern of similar contraventions by the same individual or organisation;
involve knowing or reckless breaches of the Civil Aviation Act; or
seriously endanger the safety of persons other than the person committing the contravention."
We can deduce from the first part that the cancellation of our colleague would be litmus tested against 'to remove a threat to aviation safety'.
Yet nowhere yet have I seen this aspect tested in a Court of Law to verify that a genuine threat existed. Of course, if it did, and others were jeopardised, it seems that CASA would have to move to prosecution on the basis of 'knowing or reckless breaches' or seriously endangering the safety of other persons. Perhaps the Horsham court situation is exactly that - I don't know.
But, I stand by my earlier comment - let him FIRST have a fair trial, then - and only then - off with his head if he is guilty.
I think, as an old bureaucrat, I can find my original modified application and fax you a copy if you need reassurance - provided the fax hasn't faded away to nowt!
Cheers
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: melb.vic.aust.
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dear brianh, I need to "suspend" my discussions on this interesting topic at present as I have my hands rather full at present. Just don't think I've surrendered on this! I am politically naive in many things and I try very hard not to be. I'm having computer problems too at the moment - don't seem to be able to retrieve my private messages - just don't feel too neglected - I shall reurn to continue to increase my knowledge. Kind Regards, Tealady
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Australia, NSW
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is another version of this going on over @ http://www.aimoo.com/agaf
See http://www.aimoo.com/forum/categorie...egoryID=124492
See http://www.aimoo.com/forum/categorie...egoryID=124492
