Car Ramrod,
You would be free to happily or unhappily make that argument, but the probabilities, based on the precedents so far, are that you would wind up unhappy, regardless of the starting point.
There have been a number of CASA/CDDP prosecutions over the years, on this point, the courts have found that the law is quite clear and unambiguous, you must only use approved sources.
That there is some temporary problem does not "repeal" the law. Just delay/cancel the flight to comply.
Indeed niggling and silly points like this are like pilot log books, a happy hunting ground when "they" are determined to do you for something, when the major case failed.
In one case, quite some time ago ( so don't ask me for an AustLII reference) a pilot rang a flying school at his proposed destination and a poor sodding instructor gave him a rundown on what he could see out the window.
An entirely unrelated incident brought the matter to CASA 's attention.
Both the pilot who made the call, and the instructor who helped were prosecuted.
There were no actions as a result of the initiating incident, although the FOI wanted to, Canberra made it clear to said FOI that the actions of the pilot in command were well covered by the legal rights and obligations of the pilot in command.

Tootle pip!!

Not arguing the above which are different issues, but is bom.gov.au/aviation made with the approval of the Director of Metetorñogy? If yes, then CAR 120 is pretty clear that it can be used.

LS, I completely understand where you are coming from, but I'd be quite surprised (especially in the case of NAIPS falling over) that if CASA tried to ping one and send said accused-dodgy-bastard in front of a judge, that the judge would convict.

The BOM website states that they are the provider for ASA. ASA, "the provider", also states in their own documentation (AIP) that the BOM supplies them. If we cannot get and use information from the provider's provider, then that's a crock.

Another thing that would surprise me is if the BOM would actually publish "unapproved" data in their specific Aviation section; that would leave them fairly open.

The term "equivalent level of safety" comes to mind.

You've stated that there have been prosecutions in this regard. Is that available for online reading and can you provide the link? I'd be interested in reading them.



Going on a tangent here, isn't the BOM responsible for the AWIS sites? They are "approved" bits of info when we tune in or phone them up and it doesn't come via ASA.

Car RAMROD, I think of the main issue is that the BOM Website does put up the TAFs, but are they necessarily the most current ones? How often do they update them? I know it seems like in our world of tech they should just be the latest ones all the time but that's not necessarily the case, it could just be a simple web page someone does up a couple of times a day as a reference.

The idea is that NAIPs is meant to give you the most up to date ones, it's assured basically, if you use it they'll be the latest, I'd suspect the ones on the BOM website are published but aren't necessarily updated as soon as new ones become available. It's why they give you that warning when you go to the site, they don't want the extra effort of putting in place the coding, personnel etc... required to duplicate what is essentially done by ASA.

This is the hazard that arises from using them and is the reason why they are a "Provider" of Information but NAIPs is meant to be our "Approved Source".

Then why bother putting the info up in the first place, Ix?

Their statement aboust using NAIPS, to me at least, doesn't come across as a warning. If they didn't want us to use it they'd say so explicitly (for example "Not to be used for planning"). Government departments are generally pretty good at trying to cover their own behinds aren't they?


BTW, I'm not advocating using BOM routinely as ones sole source for forecast info. It's more when NAIPS falls over like the other day. I'd be confident that one would be still safe.

That's exactly what it does say Car RAMROD:
"By entering this site, you acknowledge that this information is produced solely for use by the aviation industry, and you are aware that any information for the purposes of flight planning should be obtained from Airservices Australia."

Anything for flight planning should be obtained from ASA. I couldn't tell you exactly why they put it up, perhaps it is as some kind of back up, perhaps they have the product so they figure they should put it somewhere but won't go the extra mile to ensure it's kept up to date all the time as that's what ASA do? Maybe they have it up for people who don't have access to NAIPs for whatever reason, as in don't have a login but still want to check Aviation Style Weather?

Who knows, but it does say quite plainly that anything for the purposes of flight planning should be obtained from ASA.

I beg to differ Ix. Their terminology isn't explicitly preventing use of the BOM info.

They don't say "must not be used for planning" or "uncontrolled" or "not for operational use".

Once again, splitting hairs there Car RAMROD, "Should" implies that it's something you "Should" do, you do have a choice not to but should you come unstuck as a result of that information it would come back to that little disclaimer and you'd be told by BOM "Not our fault, you SHOULD have used ASA, too bad"

We all know it comes down to the legalese, if the information there wasn't up-to-date or someone hadn't bothered because it's not strictly meant for Flight Planning and you went ahead and used it not knowing there had been a change and it caused a problem it'd be the perfect loop-hole for CASA and/or your Insurance people to put the blame on you.

It's their way of saying "We put it up, but we might not necessarily keep it up to date, that's not really our job to provide for the public in such a manner, but here it is anyway and a disclaimer so that if we forget or don't keep it up to date we're not liable". ASA have a strict requirement for their information to be up to date, it's what we use for Flight Planning, if you got your info there and as a result came unstuck you'd be perfectly covered because that's what it's intention is for. Use the BOM stuff at your own risk though.

Of course, as Lead Sled already said, if you really want to go ahead and use it and it all comes undone, feel free to take it to court and see how it works out, my guess is you'll walk back out with a much smaller bank account and nothing to show for it.

There is an MOU between BOM and ASA that might have some answers.

For F*Ck sake, use whatever Met info you can get. I would sure as S&it trust the BOM over air no services, especially if their site is down. Some info is better than none. You got a window? Open it look at the weather and go flying if it looks ok. Even the nightly news weather give a fair idea of what is in store.

So does anyone have an idea when we will be able to get the whole shebang using the NAIPS App so we can save it on aiPad rather than having to find a printer somewhere?

Kaz

If you seriously are arguing you can't use the BOM info if NAIPS has fallen over, you're failing the common sense test.

Not arguing you can't use it Junior, arguing as to the legality of it. Common sense has no place in the CASA Version of Aviation.

Why don't you ask them Kaz? The NAIPS app is done by the OzRunways guys.

https://ozrunways.tenderapp.com/

The silence that screams volumes is that CASA has not made a public statement on its view as to the direct use of BOM forecasts.

Well done, CASA. :ok:

I already listen intently to what Rebecca is saying. ;)

OK, there is an alternative source for MET, but what about Notams.

On the night in question I was informed by pilot briefing that they had no access to weather or Notams, the whole system was down.

At least in the old day of briefing offices, there was redundancy that one office in on FIR could ring another and get Notams faxed to them.

One problem with using the BOM website for area forecasts is that they don't seem to have area forecasts on the BOM website anymore.

I don't think you'll be finding ARFOR's anywhere anymore....

OK, you're right, they are on the BOM site at a different link. Someone needs to teach the BOM about 301 and 302 redirects.