|
CIVIL AVIATION REGULATIONS 1988 - REG 138 Pilot to comply with requirements etc of aircraft's flight manual etc (1) If a flight manual has been issued for an Australian aircraft, the pilot in command of the aircraft must comply with a requirement, instruction, procedure or limitation concerning the operation of the aircraft that is set out in the manual. Penalty: 50 penalty units. (2) If a flight manual has not been issued for an Australian aircraft and, under the relevant airworthiness standards for the aircraft, the information and instructions that would otherwise be contained in an aircraft's flight manual are to be displayed either wholly on a placard, or partly on a placard and partly in another document, the pilot in command of the aircraft must comply with a requirement, instruction, procedure or limitation concerning the operation of the aircraft that is set out: (a) on the placard; or (b) on the placard or in the other document. Penalty: 50 penalty units. (3) An offence against subregulation (1) or (2) is an offence of strict liability. Note: For strict liability , see section 6.1 of the Criminal Code . I will have another go at trying to get the message across. This has been the case since mid-1998. Above is CAR 138. Would anybody (Sunfish ??) like to comment on what CAR 138 mean to them, particularly if they are not using AFM/POH check lists, as required by law. The Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) is often called the Pilot Operating Handbook (POH) or something similar for aircraft under 12500lb/5700 kg. CAR 138 means what it says and says what it means, and non-compliance could be an expensive business. Say you are ramp checked, and you, the PIC, do not have the AFM INCLUDING THE AFM CHECKLISTS, it is a strict liability offence, the maximum penalty that a court can impose is $8500.00 (plus costs) That also means that CASA can impose an Administrative Fine of $1700, and I see lots of examples of people who, out of the blue (so to speak) find a demand in the mail from CASA for $1700 for whatever the offence was !!! Things like not having the AFM, including AFM checklists on board is an absolute gift to CASA persons doing ramp checks. Administrative fines have become "A nice little earner", and I suspect the revenue potentials for administrative fines is the reason for the proliferation of "50 penalty points" offences in new regs, where the corresponding penalty in the old might have been 10, 20 or 25 penalty points. checklists on complex aircraft are a valid aide memoire. no problems on that. No they are not, and yes there is. Checklists are exactly that, checklists, NOT aide memoirs, and you are expected to operate from knowledge of the aircraft with scan flows, in a modern checklist in an airline or similar environment, the items are very brief. Typically, in a modern Boeing aircraft (anything less than about 30 years old) all the checklists, from off blox to on blox are in the centre of the control wheel for each pilot. Thus,for example, the before takeoff check will be just one item: "Flaps". Tootle pip!! PS: Most of the $1700 fines I have seen, that have "just turned up in the post" have been for alleged airspace violations, but it would seem that, increasingly, fines are being imposed after ramp checks and operator audits. |
Leadie, I am sure I am preaching to the converted but what is a problem in Australia, is that Mr Plod from CASA as well as all the gullible folk who have listened to Mr Plod and all the other OWT spinners over the years. This has resulted in the above mentioned well meaning folk believing that everything in its entirity contained in a POH must be adhered to.
This is despite the fact that many things can't be achieved at the same time, or are simply recomended examples of operation and not all the possible combinations. I sit here right now with the G36 current model Bonanza POH as a reference and despite some elements being completely deplorable I note they are not any of the above mentioned requirement, instruction, procedure or limitation concerning the operation As usual the definitions are the problem and OWT's abound ;) |
leadsled the manual for my aircraft was a minimum effort job by the first pilot.
the weight and balance information in it is incompetent because it is incomplete and misleading. flying in accordance with the manual's information has caused me significant control issues before I realised how deficient it was. I went back and worked up a full weight and balance schedule from first principles for my aircraft. In use it has proved valid and I no longer have control issues in flight. in every single interaction I have had with CASA the answer has been a flat "NO". it has been utterly useless trying to get anything out of CASA. so why would I bother? I fly with a competent weight and balance schedule. that is all I need. CASA can get Fcuked and the law be damned. |
W8
Over time I have learned enough from your posts that your aircraft may in fact not require an AFM, but the fact you have something that is wrong and the wrong folk at CASA seem too incompetent to help. Despite this you have failed to address this with the one person who can. Ask yourself .....Who was the AP who issued the CofA? ;) They are in fact the best folk to consult. |
Hi there FIG, if you’re doing a multi-engine endorsement on say a C310 or Baron, are you saying that there is no requirement to conduct simulated asymmetric operations at a safe height as part of the endorsement process?
Cheers. VH-MLE |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 23:32. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.