Easy to prove?

There is no law that says you can't take off at 42C. The only applicable law says you can't take off overloaded.

But how can CASA prove you were overloaded when the charts only go up to 40C?

FGD135, there is no requirement for the Prosecutor (which is not CASA) to prove you were overweight. It is up you to prove that you were not.

The law clearly (albeit in my opinion, stupidly) states that you must not allow the aircraft to takeoff overweight.

If the charts cannot be extrapolated and you are operating outside of a limit of that chart, then you are breaking the law. The law is one of strict liability that permits no defence.

Sadly there is nothing to stop CASA ramp checking anyone who commits aviation on a +40C + SL day and asking how you complied with the strict requirement. The short answer is you can't and they could, if they wished, send you the 'fax' and refer to the prosecutor.

So you're guilty until proven innocent under Australian law, then?

Ok, so which law is that?

Actually, there are ways, involving your experience. For example, you could say, "I took off perfectly safely yesterday, under the exact same conditions". Note that the law doesn't stipulate how you have to assess your takeoff performance.

And that gets us back to just how were the temperature defined for the ramp check ? ...the 'official' met which is not a now figure, or from the 'ambient' temperature taken somewhere near the aircraft at a particular time.
On a hot summers day if the aircraft is parked between a row of stifling windless hangers the temperature at the aircraft could be anywhere up to 10+ degrees hotter then if it were parked 50 metres away on the wind swept grass near, though not under, that shady tree. There is no fixed ambient temperature on an airfield.

The other mater is many of the temp charts for older aircraft were done before electronic temperature recorders were in common usage. Older temp gauges are a bit lazy, i.e. They only give an average temperature over a few minutes time frame and thus do not record every fleeting high temperature peak like the electronic temp gauges do. This is well seen with the current global warming idiocy where modern temperature 'records' recorded on millisecond recording electronic equipment is compared to the older temperature records recorded via lazy mercury gauges. It may be something CASA needs to look at as to how a pilot defines the temp to use.

I suspect even Rumpole could run rings around any ramp check temperatures if it were bought to court. At any rate, it would certainly put CASA square into the global warming 'issue'..:cool:







.

And you can't if you're not taking off from the paved, level, dry runway typically specified on the chart.

djpil in an earlier post provided information on how to factor the take off distance for runways that were not as described on the chart, but I'm not aware of any OFFICIAL document giving our newly minted 172 PPL guidance, or anybody else for that matter.

In a previous life used to operate out of wheat paddocks with standing stubble. Sure extends the run.

FB, you raise a good point about temperature. In summer the aircraft gauge could get up to 60C from heat soak if it had been standing for a period of time. No other source of info. Prop wash after start used to bring it back.

Yes. for strict liability civil matters, yes. It's been that way for some time.

the bit that says "you must". the law says nothing about interpreting the chart, or what happens if you "draw" outside the lines. It simply says that you must do a thing, and you have been left with no way to prove that you did that thing. Ergo, you have committed the offence.

No you could not, you would simply be admitting to breaking the law twice on successive days. That's beginning to look like systemic failure to CASA. You could also say that you took off 500kg over MGTOW yesterday and it was fine, so there is no issue with the MGTOW rule either; or I flew without a valid medical and it was fine too.

The law doesn't work the way you think it does. If you tried anything that you have suggested as your version of a defence, then after counsel for the prosecution stopped sniggering the magistrate or judge would pretty much move to the penalty phase.

You are labouring under the misapprehension that there is an innocent until proven guilty clause in Australian civil law. There is not.

Cannot disagree with you but if it's 48C on the AWIS and the TAF and on the BOM's "you-beaut" historical temperature data recording, you're just not gunna get away with "but my temperate gauge read 39C, your honour"

You would need some basis for making the claim and owning up to the fact your temperature gauge is inaccurate ... well the 'safer skies' mob have strict liability rules on accuracy of gauges too.

The most modern aircraft I have an AFM is the C208. In limitations it says-

The aircraft I am endorsed to fly, The C182P AFM does not have a temp limit anywhere in limitations...it has a service ceiling of 17700ft

If I am at AS, elevation 1789Ft and a temp of 42C...my 182 could surely never leave the runway..yet it does...why is this so?

OK whats the density altitude? for 42C...if pressure alt is right for AS then the density alt is going to be 5500ft say 6000ft...go back to chart for takeoff at max weight..look for ISA temp, not there so go to 20C graph and 6000ft
which gives you your takeoff performance...if someone is so bloody dumb not to understand how to use their P charts they do not deserve to hold their licence...ANY LICENCE!

So..if the there is no temp limit written in limitations there is NO LIMIT FOR TEMPERATURE!

Last time I passed PPL my wing sees only air density, my internal combustion engine only sees air density. The charts are there to help the pilot make interpretations easier. Just because the company calculations stop at 40C does not mean that is a limitation. If there is a pressure altitude up to 8000ft that means you have density altitude to 8000ft USE IT! and tell CASA where to bloody go if they ever try this on you!

Effectively, the Cessna charts give you pressure altitude up to 8000ft at max weight. ISA at 8000ft is 0C. So my C182 p chart runs out at a pressure alt of 10500ft for max weight. If I lower my weight I can get p charts to
ISA+40 or 13000ft pressure altitude. I have never operated in PNG or West Irian but I am pretty damn sure any pilot who has flew up there can tell me that a C182 can take off from 8000ft pretty well.

Bankstown Boy,

It is tough to debate you when you don't answer my questions and fail to understand what I have written. I am going to have to go over everything again, laboriously. Please read carefully this time, and answer my questions.

Can you give an example of a "strict liability civil matter" where you are presumed guilty until proven innocent? If what you are claiming is true, then you could be taken to court on nothing more than an allegation - and then convicted if you fail to mount a defence.

Are you saying that this happens in Australia? Can you give an example?

Take the case of a cop issuing you with a speeding infringement. This would be an offence of strict liability in every state. Do you consider this to be an example of a case where you are "guilty until proven innocent"? Please answer this question.

When I asked "Ok, so which law is that?", I was actually referring to this statement of yours ...

... and asking which law it is that you have broken. There is no law that says you must not operate outside the limits of a chart. Can you point me to any such law?

This statement shows, very clearly, that you do not understand what I have written. I have never said, nor implied, any such thing. My whole point is that to break a law, the law has to exist in the first place. There are clear laws that apply to takeoff weight and medical certificates.

When it comes to taking off, there is only one law, and it states that you cannot take off overloaded. Therefore, to charge you under this law, the allegation has to be that you "took off overloaded". It cannot be that you went outside a chart limit.

By admitting that you "took off yesterday under identical conditions", what law have you broken?

Let's say you safely took off at 42C, but your charts only went to 40C. Are you saying CASA could charge you with an offence? If so, then please state exactly which law it is that you have broken.

Queensland landholders 'guilty until proven innocent' under land clearing reforms - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)


One example is section 685 of the Local Government Act. It reverses the presumption of innocence by making that mere allegations, such as that someone has not received a council approval, is "sufficient proof of the matter" alleged. In the words of the chief justice, this "renders someone guilty of a criminal offence by a mere accusation".


Another example is section 60E of the Water Management Act. It says that where water is taken without a licence, the occupier of the relevant premises is deemed guilty of an offence. Remarkably, the act goes on to state that this does not prevent proceedings being brought against "the person who actually committed the offence".


Federal law provides many further examples. A long list is set out in the report on traditional rights and freedoms released earlier this month by the Australian Law Reform Commission. Some of the federal laws that breach the presumption are in expected areas such as terrorism and drug offences. Others relate to taxation, copyright and marriage.

FGD135, I don't know what school of self-entitlement you went to, but demanding that I read carefully and then answer your questions, is surely a some form of a joke?

I don't owe you a living and I am not your servant.

This is a forum where people come to discuss things.

I have answered your questions explicitly and in some detail previously. The fact they do not accord with your world view, nor do you feel that I have answered you to your satisfaction in no concern of mine.

I suggest if you have any interest, go back and read the succinct answers I gave to your questions, or don't, as suits you. I don't particularly care either way.

Happy Easter, or may the bunny have been good to you, depending on your personal proclivities.

If CASA cannot prosecute a Qantas crew for taking off with no runway lighting in Hobart, what chance have they got in your hypothetical situation of high temperature?

This stuff is only a problem if you have an accident as there is a financial imperative from the insurance company to show that you did something wrong.

Accused Qantas pilots won't stand trial

Seems that it has fallen in a hole. CAO 20.7.4 is very specific that short dry grass must be used to determine takeoff distance. Student pilots practice short field operations at grass strips and they get to calculate the relevant distances before they launch off on a nav exercise.
I've seen one big flying school use a modified version of CASA's SE Endorsement Questionnaire to specify short dry grass for the airfield performance question.

There is no law that says you must not operate outside the limits of a chart. Can you point me to any such law ?

Now, I'm just an average old pharte pilot and aero engineer, not a lawyer in any sense of the word.

However,

(a) the Act [98 (3)] talks about the Governor General's having the power to make regulations for or in relation to the following

(b) [(h)] goes on to say empowering CASA .. to give or issue directions or instructions ... with respect to matters affecting the ... operation ... of aircraft

(c) [(ka)] provides for requiring the production/amendment of flight (and other) manuals

(d) [(kd)] talks about requiring specified persons to comply with such manuals, systems and documents as in force at a particular time or from time to time

(e) CAR (1988) 2 gives some pertinent definitions -

gross weight, in relation to an aircraft at any time, means the weight of the aircraft, together with the weight of all persons and goods (including fuel) on board the aircraft, at that time, estimated in accordance with the method set out in a direction in force under subregulation 235(1).

maximum landing weight, in relation to an aircraft, means the weight set out in the certificate of airworthiness of, or the flight manual for, the aircraft as the maximum landing weight.

maximum take‑off weight, in relation to an aircraft, means the weight set out in the certificate of airworthiness of, or the flight manual for, the aircraft as the maximum take‑off weight.

It follows that the AFM regulated weights would be captured as well as the TC weights - see CAR (1988) 235.

(f) CAR (1988) 54 talks more about flight manuals

The registered operator of an aircraft must ensure that the aircraft’s flight manual is at all times appropriate for the aircraft, having regard to:
(a) any direction issued by CASA relating to the flight manual; and
(b) any modifications to the aircraft that would require amendment of the flight manual; and
(c) any instructions in relation to the flight manual from the holder of a type certificate, supplemental type certificate or modification/repair design approval that applies to the aircraft

(g) CAR 233 (b) has this to say -

the gross weight of the aircraft does not exceed the limitations fixed by or under regulation 235 and is such that flight performance in accordance with the standards specified by CASA for the type of operation to be undertaken is possible under the prevailing conditions

(h) CAR 233 (c) adds this -

any directions of CASA with respect to the loading of the aircraft given under regulation 235 have been complied with

(i) CAR 235 is the catch all, I think ..

(1) CASA may, for the purposes of these Regulations, give directions setting out the method of estimating, with respect to an aircraft at anytime:
(a) the weight of the aircraft, together with the weight of all persons and goods (including fuel) on board the aircraft, at that time ...
(2) CASA may ... give directions setting out the manner of determining, with respect to a proposed flight of an aircraft:
(a) a maximum weight, being a weight less than the maximum take‑off weight of the aircraft; or
(b) a maximum weight, being a weight less than the maximum landing weight of the aircraft;
that the gross weight of the aircraft at take‑off or landing, as the case may be, is not to exceed.
(2A) A person must not contravene a direction under subregulation (1) or (2) ...

(3) A manner of determining a maximum weight referred to in subregulation (2) shall be such as to take into account such of the following considerations as CASA considers appropriate:
......
(d) the meteorological conditions at the aerodrome at which the aircraft is to take off or land;
(e) the altitude of the aerodrome at which the aircraft is to take off or land;
.....
(g) the material of which the surface of the aerodrome in the direction in which the aircraft is to take off or land is constituted and the condition and slope of that surface
......
(4) The pilot in command of an aircraft must not allow the aircraft to take off if its gross weight exceeds its maximum take‑off weight or, if a lesser weight determined in accordance with a direction under subregulation (2) is applicable to the take‑off, that lesser weight.
.....
(6) The pilot in command of an aircraft, must not land the aircraft if its gross weight exceeds its maximum landing weight or, if a lesser weight determined in accordance with a direction under subregulation (2) is applicable to the landing, that lesser weight.

Presuming that the typical pilot is, indeed, familiar with the CAO 20.7 series, one should have a look at the following CAOs which cover the bulk of operations ...

(j) CAO 20.7.1b which talks about elevations and ambient temperatures

(k) CAO 20.7.4 which talks about pressure heights and temperatures.


I think you should be planning on co-opting the services of very good Counsel in the event that you are challenged in Court regarding your philosophies ...

I can see Denis Denuto prosecuting for CASA... "No, it's just the vibe, I rest my case". Can anyone help with how many rotary and smaller fixed wing fire fighting aircraft will this possibly cover for SE Australia?

Among a sea of bush lawyers (and a couple of real ones) at least someone is on the ball and knows their stuff.

I might of missed this bit, if they are going to take you on where is the 40+ degrees sourced from, the aircraft probe, TAF, ATIS ect.

if they are going to take you on where is the 40+ degrees sourced from

This is the saving grace with temperature .. the local rules permit a variety of not so precise accuracy temperatures so it would be reasonable to presume a range of arguments could be presented to cover the situation.

The important thing is that one needs to be very careful and, perhaps, a bit conservative, if one wishes to step a little outside the charts in respect of any of the variables. I don't think a degree or two in OAT will overly excite CASA but that is just the thin edge of the wedge, as it were.

The problem with CASA, as demonstrated by this debate, is that they rely on legal arguments which by definition, have nothing to do with safety, in fact the legal arguments are anti safety.

Hence Djplls observation that as his Decathlon has no performance charts, he can do what he likes in respect of temperature with no possibility of CASA prosecution.

In other words, the absence of information on the performance degradation at high density altitudes in the documentation is a net positive from the point of view of avoiding prosecution. This is the reverse of a safety culture.

I have noticed this before in the way aviation is regulated, for example, my aircraft, if it is ever finished, needs an environmental noise compliance certificate ...which will state that this aircraft is exempt from the requirement to have a compliance certificate!

From the point of view of creating a safety culture, it appears to me that CASAs approach is counterproductive. For example, I now know enough to ensure that I will never fit a camera or post stuff to youtube. Data logging is going to be disabled, the maintenance manuals and POH I need to produce will be the bare minimum skeletons I can get away with and any aviation activities will be conducted as far from prying eyes as possible. The aircraft will never fly to shows or events which attract CASA ramp checkers.

Basically CASA has so prescribed aviation activities in this country as to almost make it not worth it.

I think people keep ignoring what a couple of posters have said, POH take-off charts typically provide pressure altitudes and temps however there is nothing to stop the pilot working out an equivalent density altitude and using that instead. It is just a convenience to help calculate, not a performance limitation.

If you had a density altitude that exceeded the values covered by the TO chart/table then maybe rethinking the take-off would actually be sensible. The only manual I have to hand at the moment has TO figures for a PA up to 8000' and temps up to 38C

This would mean you have a chart that covers density altitudes to over 12,000' (!)

eg
50C at Oodnadatta would have a DA I think a bit over 4000'

If you had 50C OATat Oodnadatta, although it isn't listed in the table, you pick the 4000' DA point (4000' and 7C) and you can calculate the TO distance just fine using that value. You are well within the calculated performance values even if 50C is not listed.

I seriously doubt there would be many times in Oz where a strip would ever exceed a 12,000' DA - and if there was - rethinking a takeoff in those conditions would make serious sense.

PPLs are required to understand and calculate density altitude as part of their theory course.

Jonkster, there is no doubt, to me, or I suspect any trained pilot that the aircraft only cares about density altitude and that any (I've seen) p charts easily allow you calculate said density altitude.

But we are discussing the law, not aviation.

The law doesn't operate in the same way science (or mostly commonsense) does.

To a pilot, PA+OAT=DA (simplified) and therefore you and I could use the same p chart, at the same airport, in the same conditions, and come to same conclusion about rwy length/TOW. It's repeatable and falsifiable, ergo science.

To a barrister (and almost universally to a court) the p chart has temperature and pressure lines and you can't extrapolate.

If you were wealthy (hired a good team of an SC, a junior, and had good instructing solicitors) and you were lucky on the day; you might convince the court that what you say is actually correct.

But the wealth of evidence is against you. The relevant evidence acts are probably the most arcane part of our legal system, you think aviation law is turgid and dense, it's got nothing of the rules surrounding evidence and admissibility. I would suspect that you would require evidence from an expert witness (physicist, or atmospheric scientist) to testify to the formula, otherwise it is simply hearsay and would be struck. That expert is only going to have been appointed after a few directions hearing and challenges and then you better hope they impress on the day, don't say anything stupid, like it's not actually 1.98C per 1,000 feet as that's an estimate/average (bye, bye your argument).

Sounds ridiculous? Stick to flying and mooning CASA, that's what I do, it's far simpler and easier on the blood pressure.

djpil, to quoteandThere are no charts covering take off on short, dry grass so I'm obliged to comply with the highlighted portion of para 6.2. ie I can only operate from a paved, level, dry runway, since that is the only condition for which data is available.

Operate off anything else and run into the trees at the end the Feds are going to ask "how did you substantiate the take off performance? Please tender to the court the CASA approved chart".

So how does Farmer Fred go about operating his 182 to land and check his dams, bore pumps, troughs etc that CASA will accept as "legal", whatever that means? Paved, level, dry runways?

This is what it really comes down to, and post after post has been skirting round this reality.

Here it is again:

Run off the end of the runway due lack of performance and CASA will come after you. The proof is self evident. Outside the charts or not, you have demonstrably taken off overweight.

or

Get safely airborne and CASA will not come after you. Sure, somebody may dob you in because he knows you were outside the performance envelope, but even in this case, CASA would think twice about whether it would be worth pursuing you.

More likely used the wrong technique if the people that I see operating piston singles is any guide.

Well, I found that article about how to correct for the effect of short dry grass in the Sept-Oct 2002 issue of Flight Safety magazine and I was correct that the data came from the UK CAA.

The article was an analysis by “staff writers” about a takeoff accident to a Piper Lance PA-28R-300. My copy of the relevant POH has a chart to convert pressure altitude and temperature to density altitude then a takeoff distance chart presented vs density altitude only for a paved level runway. The authors focused on the importance of the correct technique per the POH and only at the end of the article did they note: “Additional factors should also be applied in the event that the performance chart does not make an allowance for variables like runway slope, runway surface, headwind component and so on (see table).” The table states a 20% increase in take-off distance for short dry grass.

Some other interesting statements in that article:
“….. It is tempting to simply say the whole episode could have been avoided if the pilot had consulted his aircraft’s take-off performance charts … However, it is unrealistic to assume that all light-aircraft pilots will calculate the exact take-off and landing distance required before every flight. ….… or the gap between the runway required and the runway available becomes marginal, the pilot refers to the performance charts and … How can we improve our decision-making skills? …….. A word of warning about aircraft performance charts. Depending on the year your aircraft was certified, its charts may or may not include built-in safety factors. ….. the production of uniquely Australian charts ceased and pilots …... calculate performance using information supplied by manufacturers. Aircraft manufacturers’ performance charts do not include built-in safety factors and in most cases reflect best-possible performance achieved with: Highly experienced test pilots …”

There was a time (two years ago) when we should’ve stopped worrying about CAO 20.7.4 – a note in the Exposure Draft of Part 91 (MOS for 91.1035 Aircraft Performance): “It is the intention that CAOs 20.7.4. …. will be subject of a project to review them and provide guidance material in the form of an AC in the future. Much of the content of the CAOs contain either certification standards or outdated information. CASA expects pilots to operate in accordance with the aircraft flight manual (AFM). All performance information in the AFM is produced and complies with the aeroplane certification standards.”

Folks,
Perhaps because the analysis of the FDR, and the actual activation time base showed that the lights were on at the start of the takeoff roll, and the demonstrated probability was that they went off shortly after airborne. Remember the criminal standard of proof is "beyond a reasonable doubt".

Under cross examination, "eyewitnesses" are notoriously unreliable sources of evidence, as any criminal prosecutor knows.

Back to the thread, I haven't read the whole thread, has CAR 138 rated a mention? Then you have to understand the certification base for the particular aircraft AFM/POH, to understand what is an enforceable limitation and what is advisory in an AFM/POH (if the aircraft has one).

Tootle pip!!

Funny you should mention CAR 138, since that is what CASA cite in their letter.

Their position is that the range of the parameters in the performance charts forms part of the limitations for the aircraft.

andrewr,
As I said, compliance with the AFM/POH/whatever presupposes you understand which parts of the AFM/POH are mandatory, and which are advisory, in the original certification. That can only be determined by understanding the original certification basis of the aircraft. For a US certified aircraft that is reasonably easy, not so elsewhere.

Make no mistake, the AFM/POH forms an essential part of the certification documentation of an aircraft, just as much as Continuing Airworthiness requirements, Weight and Balance etc., and is listed in the Type Certificate Data Sheet or equivalent.

That is not determined by CASA, or even properly understood by many on the CASA payroll, as evidenced by the continual demands for modifications to AFM/POH mandated procedures, without having the legal power, so to do. In my opinion, invariably increasing the risk (or “less safe”, if you insist on using that particularly useless term) to the operation, usually by intolerably increasing the flightdeck workload at critical phases of flight.

Not having the power doesn’t fazed the average enforcement minded CASA employee one little bit --- “they” well understand that “you” can’t afford a High Court case to prove them wrong.**

However, major airlines can afford said HCA case, and they do understand the limitation of CASA power to “order” AFM changes. ie: nil. All airlines of my experience are very careful to go through a comprehensive and legal process, if they want to modify, in ANY way, an AFM mandated procedure. They end up with a quite legal AFM that meets their needs.

The legal and reputational consequences to airlines, of not going through that procedure are to expensive to risk.

What is done is to negotiate any desired change with the Type Certificate holder and the state that issued the Type Certificate, only with the express approval of both is any operator’s change to an AFM “legal”. What said airline has, is an amended Type Certificate.

I suppose CASA could always raise a Legislative Instrument to mandate advisory sections of an AFM, but that would be very legally dodgy, if it was to be challenged.

All the above remarks specifically relates to the Australian legislative framework, not any other country.

Tootle pip!!

** CASA will "get" you some other way, if you do not obediently fall into line ---- like refusing to issue/reissue your AOC.

Agreed, as a read of the FAA Pilots Handbook dealing with take off performance centres on density altitude, which is as it should be, since that is what determines aircraft performance. In entering the graph or table with pressure altitude and OAT what you are determining is that at that (unstated on the chart) density altitude the take off run will occupy XXX feet. Of course you can determine the density altitude easily enough should you so wish, it's just that it's not stated on the chart. Density altitude is the only altitude your aircraft understands, it doesn't understand pressure altitude, nor temperature, as stand alone parameters.

https://www.faa.gov/regulations_poli...t_handbook.pdf

Extract from a Cessna 207 manual - at gross, short field on a paved, dry, level runway, distance to clear 50 feet, where I've calculated the DA from the formula DA = 1.24 PA + 118.8 OAT − 1782 and extended it to 50°C.

PA/OATXXx0°CXXX10°CXXX20°CXXX30°CXXX40°CXXX50°C
0XXXXXX-1782XXX-594XXXx594XXX1782XXX2970XXX4158 DA
XXXXXXXx1770XXx1900XXx2040XXX2195XXX2355XXXXXXXfDistance
1000XXXX-542XXXX646XXx1834XXX3022XXX4210XXX5398 DA
XXXxXXXX1940XXx2085XXx2240XXX2410XXx2600XXXXXXXfDistance
2000XXXXX698XXx1886 XXx3074XXX4262XXx5450XXX6638 DA
XXXXXXXx2130XXf2295XXX2470XXX2665XXx2875XXXXXXXfDistance
3000XXXX1938XXx3126XXX4314XXX5502XXx6690XXX7878 DA
XXXXXXxX2345XXf2530XXX2730XXX2955XXx3195XXXXXXXfDistance
4000XXXx3178XXx4366XXX5554XXX6742XXx7930XXX9118 DA
XXXXxxXX2595XXx2805XXx3035XXX3290XXx3570XXXXXXXXDistance
5000XxXX4418XXX5606XXx6794XXX7982XXx9170XX10358 DA
XXXXXxxx2880XXX3125XXx3390XXX3685XXx4020XXXXXxXXDistance
6000xxXX5658XXX6846XXx8034XXX9222XX10410XX11598 DA
XXXXxxXx3215XXx3495XXx3810XXX4165XXX4575XXXXXXXDistance
7000XXxX6898XXx8086XXx9274XX10462XX11650XX12838 DA
XXXXXxXx3615XXx3945XXf4325XXx4760XXXXXXXXXXXXXfDistance
8000XxXX8138XXx9326XX10514Xx11702XX12890XX14078 DA
XXXXxxXx4095XXx4500XXx4970XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXfDistance

A Koch Chart will similarly predict adjustments, based on OAT and PA, to be made for both take off and climb data.And if look at the C207 data I've posted that limit is take off at a DA of 10,514 feet.

Or perhaps not. The evidence was LOST due to the passage of time.

What about this one?

https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/412877...-171_final.pdf

Here is some of the case info, I should have said Launceston but as there have been so many I confused them.

http://www.summarycrime.com/2009/05/losing-evidence-might-mean-losing-case.html

The big boys don't fly when it's over the limits...

Phoenix heat wave: Too hot to fly? - 3TV | CBS 5

By this logic, if the performance chart for a PA28 only includes headwinds up to 15 knots then if it goes above that I can't take off or land....of course there is nothing in the "limitations" section of the POH about this

Are people really still using the little black AFMs? I thought they were legally discredited a long time ago. Though I see the text books and exams still have the "Cessna" graphs even though "real" Cessna manuals use tables.

headwinds up to 15 knots

Excursions which, clearly, are conservative probably aren't in question

the little black AFMs? I thought they were legally discredited

All out of vogue unless specifically approved, I suggest.

However, in general, the DCA approved P-charts were a reasonable compromise between simplicity, accuracy, and conservatism. As you would be well aware, some were a tad average ..

Clare, you've got the logic arse-about. The performance chart would have to only include headwinds above 15kts for your analogy to work. More headwind is safer. More temperature is not.

How do you feel about a "Normal Procedures" takeoff in a 172 with flaps 0 and 70-80 KIAS climb, when the performance charts are based on flaps 10, 56 KIAS climb?

Or a "Normal Procedures" landing at 60-70 KIAS when the performance charts specify 61 KIAS?

Neither are on the conservative side, and there are no performance charts or tables for Normal Procedures, only Short Field. If you're not using the charts anyway, why does it matter if the temperature is outside their range?

(And if you ARE using the charts for Normal Procedures, that's worse, because you can pretty much guarantee that you won't achieve anywhere near the chart figures.)

I imagine their charts are compiled somewhat differently and they fly the chart speeds every takeoff and landing. Not to mention things like derated takeoffs that require more runway, V1 speeds etc. - they mean that the performance calculations are more critical.

If the runway is short and you find yourself consulting the charts, I would certainly be cautious about exceeding the temperature range. In those circumstances I might be reconsidering even if it is within the range of the charts. But a blanket statement that aircraft must be grounded seems extreme.

http://www.pprune.org Flight Safety Information http://www.pprune.org Flight Safety Information June 20, 2017 - No. 123
ARGUS 2017 TRAINING COURSES Incident: Cathay Pacific B744 at Hong Kong on Jun 19th 2017, gear problem after departure Incident: British Airways B772 at Kuwait on Jun 16th 2017, engine shut down in flight Incident: Atlasjet B738 at Istanbul on Jun 18th 2017, lightning strike Phoenix flights cancelled because it's too hot for planes Here's a Free Study Guide for Passing the FAA's Commercial Drone Test FAA Boss Outlines Brexit Safety Concerns for UK Aviation Global demand for airline service lifts airplane forecast to new high EasyJet to deploy aircraft fault prediction tech Dubai's flying taxi to soar by year-end Airline industry facing a massive shortfall of pilots, survey says Sharp-nosed Japanese jetliner could be game changer for U.S. flyers Boeing planning on hypersonic jets for commercial flights Boeing launches new jet with flurry of orders GE Tells Boeing It Won't Join Three-Way Race on 797 Plane Engine NATS and CAAi sign international cooperation agreement BOWTIE RISK MANAGEMENT WORKSHOP...July 18 - 19, 2017 Position Available:...Operations Manager Flight Data Connect Magnetic space tug could target dead satellites Graduate Research Survey Request ADVERTISE WITH FLIGHT SAFETY INFORMATION Today's Photo http://www.pprune.org
Back to Top
Incident: Cathay Pacific B744 at Hong Kong on Jun 19th 2017, gear problem after departure


A Cathay Pacific Boeing 747-400 freighter, registration B-LIA performing freight flight CX-3290 from Hong Kong (China) to Anchorage,AK (USA), was climbing out of Hong Kong's runway 07L when the crew requested to stop the climb at 7000 feet reporting a gear problem and advised they would need to dump fuel and return to Hong Kong. The crew further advised they wanted to check whether there is any smoke from the right hand side, if not, they would start their fuel dump. The crew reported about 5 minutes later that they were now ready for a fuel dump, commenced fuel dump and returned to Hong Kong for a safe landing on runway 07L about 85 minutes after departure.

The occurrence aircraft remained on the ground for about 18 hours, then departed again and is estimated to reach Anchorage with a delay of about 19 hours.

http://avherald.com/h?article=4aa8ceee&opt=0

Back to Top
Incident: British Airways B772 at Kuwait on Jun 16th 2017, engine shut down in flight


A British Airways Boeing 777-200, registration G-VIIH performing flight BA156 from Kuwait (Kuwait) to London Heathrow,EN (UK), was climbing out of Kuwait when the crew stopped the climb at FL160 reporting an engine (GE90) failure. The crew shut the engine down and returned to Kuwait for a safe landing on runway 33R about 45 minutes after departure.

Passengers reported the captain announced they had needed to shut one engine down.

The occurrence aircraft is still on the ground in Kuwait about 87 hours after landing back.

http://avherald.com/h?article=4aa8ccc1&opt=0

Back to Top
Incident: Atlasjet B738 at Istanbul on Jun 18th 2017, lightning strike


An Atlasjet Boeing 737-800, registration TC-SNT performing flight KK-9764 from Istanbul (Turkey) to Tbilisi (Georgia), was climbing out of Istanbul when the crew stopped the climb at FL180 following a lightning strike and decided to return to Istanbul for a safe landing on runway 35L about 50 minutes after departure.

The occurrence aircraft received damage and remained on the ground for 10.5 hours before returning to service.

http://avherald.com/h?article=4aa8cabf&opt=0

Back to Top
Phoenix flights cancelled because it's too hot for planes
http://www.pprune.org
A plane is silhouetted against the sky as it takes off from Heathrow Airport 19 December 2002 in London, England.

Even for Arizona, the temperatures are high - hot enough to stop flights
As temperatures climb in Phoenix, Arizona, more than 40 flights have been cancelled - because it is too hot for the planes to fly.

The weather forecast for the US city suggests temperatures could reach 120F (49C) on Tuesday.
That is higher than the operating temperature of some planes.

American Airlines announced it was cancelling dozens of flights scheduled to take off from Sky Harbor airport during the hottest part of the day.

The local Fox News affiliate in Phoenix said the cancellations mostly affected regional flights on the smaller Bombardier CRJ airliners, which have a maximum operating temperature of about 118F (48C).

The all-time record for temperatures in Phoenix is just slightly higher, at 122F, which hit on 26 June 1990.
The cancelled flights were scheduled to take off between 15:00 and 18:00 local time.

Why can't planes fly?

At higher temperatures, air has a lower density - it is thinner. That lower air density reduces how much lift is generated on an aircraft's wings - a core principle in aeronautics.

That, in turn, means the aircraft's engines need to generate more thrust to get airborne.

It's a well-known problem - a 2016 report from the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) even warned that higher temperatures caused by climate change could "have severe consequences for aircraft take-off performance, where high altitudes or short runways limit the payload or even the fuel-carrying capacity".

Those problems are why many countries in the Middle East, and some high-altitude airports in South America, tend to schedule long flights for the evening or night, when it is cooler.

Bigger aircraft like Boeing 747s and Airbus models have a slightly higher operating temperature, and have not been affected by the heat in Phoenix.

An American Airlines statement provided to The Arizona Republic newspaper said those jets should be fine up to 126-127F (53C) - just a little higher than what is expected.

Those temperatures, however, are forecast for the aptly named Furnace Creek in Death Valley, in California, with some areas expecting new temperature records on Tuesday.

The Death Valley National Parks Service has issued a warning to visitors to avoid hiking after 10am, and to "travel prepared to survive".

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40339730

What is the applicable rule?
How is that rule applied to each parameter?

Where do CASA's declared density altitude charts fit into all this, they don't mention temperature

A very good question!

Declared density is a substitute for knowing the temperature. You can use a standard temperature and higher altitude in your charts - exactly what this opinion says you are not allowed to do.

So maybe you are not allowed to use declared density any more, or maybe CASA didn't think things through when they wrote the opinion.

reading thru 6 pages of responses, where is this going?

then you use the MTOW for the ac...FFS. (sorry, but if you cannot determine your weight, how did you determine loading for the ac? )
In reality, if you are a driver and cannot figure out your MTOW, then it does not matter what the temperature is, you should be restricted from taking off.

What is MTOW for the ac based on?

The MTOW and associated parameters with ISA with airport altitude and temperature are well defined.

ISA and ISA d....is there an understanding of the ISA temp/altitude, (and MTOW) and what one must do when NOT within those parameters???

With the ISA D, you can determine what MTOW is based on per the temperature D. If the temp is higher than listed, you need to weight limit, and calc the new MTOW.
When ac look at restricting ops with temp, it means that IT cannot meet DEP obstacle clearance EO, and UNLESS you have an EO approved procedure, thus must follow the SID procedure.

In reality, I have significant concerns with drivers who have no understanding of MTOW, associated temperature limitations with the associated effects, nor the comprehension of the necessity to calculate take off weights for their aircraft..